Democrats, do you really think Hillary Clinton is a good candidate for 2016?

[THE Bigzoman]

No.

The left need not fret though. Cory Booker or Elizebeth Warren will step up to the plate.

[Dendrek]

Well Fox News hates her... isn't that all the proof you need to tell she is good?

Fox news would hate a puppy if they thought it had liberal-leaning ideologies.

[Tastyfish]

No.

The left need not fret though. Cory Booker or Elizebeth Warren will step up to the plate.

Booker is a baby wallstreeter, who is too new to have the record we see in his seniors.
Remember he let Christie be gov. too.

[THE Bigzoman]

Booker is a baby wallstreeter, who is too new to have the record we see in his seniors.
Remember he let Christie be gov. too.

Obama was fairly new to. But the youth outweighed experience to a majority of dem voters.

I don't see any candiates besides Booker and Warren that can rally the base like Obama did.

[PACOX]

Obama was fairly new to. But the youth outweighed experience to a majority of dem voters.

I don't see any candidates besides Booker and Warren that can rally the base like Obama did.

I don't see another "young" president being elected in for awhile after Obama. I honestly don't think Obama has done a bad job with the cards he was dealt but his political inexperience shows. Republican's were able to politically outplay him multiple times because of his inexperience.

[Wilian]

I don't see another "young" president being elected in for awhile after Obama. I honestly don't think Obama has done a bad job with the cards he was dealt but his political inexperience shows. Republican's were able to politically outplay him multiple times because of his inexperience.

They didn't as much outplay as hit the brakes every moment possible..

[artemishunter1]

I'm a liberal and personally I think Hillary Clinton has always been rather incompetent, yet she's always lauded for reasons I cannot comprehend.

I'm not suggesting the Republican candidate will be any better given they are still pandering to extremists, but theoretically would you personally be happy with Hillary Clinton being the presidential candidate?

Yes. Absolutely. Hillary is a democrat, not liberal. Being democrat means she is better than current status of republican party. Not being liberal means, she would put the Nation as a whole first. She is hawkish, means she will be the right person to deal with the resurgent Russia. Being a democrat and hawkish means she won't be afraid to use force when necessary, while not doing things like invading Iraq when Iraq is not a threat to U.S.. She also is not giving blowjob to Israel. And She has BALLS, something thats been missing from the White House for a long time.

And last but not least, something about her. I can not put finger on it. She radiates aura of power, of someone who is dangerous, someone who is BORN leader.

[Xisa]

I'd rather not vote for American royalty, thanks. This applies to Jeb Bush as well.

[Elegiac]

I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he was on the Democrat ticket, simply to avoid having a Republican.

[Moralgy]

Yes, I want Bill to become the first lady.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'd rather not vote for American royalty, thanks. This applies to Jeb Bush as well.

I'm really not looking forward to upcoming republican candidates. Walker and Rubio; the latter of which has been quiet since immigration reform entered the dark depths of partisan dreadlocks are the only two candidates that have my eye as of now.

[Tastyfish]

Obama was fairly new to. But the youth outweighed experience to a majority of dem voters.
I don't see any candiates besides Booker and Warren that can rally the base like Obama did.

I honestly think Hillary is a smokescreen and something crazy like Newsom will be flung into the mix.

[THE Bigzoman]

I honestly think Hillary is a smokescreen and something crazy like Newsom will be flung into the mix.

Gavin Newsom?

Oh god.

Just no.

[RaoBurning]

I'd vote for Hilary if for no other reason than to give Bill access to the White House for naughty fun time again. I'd also like to know what we call the male companion of a female president. When I think "Lady" I think "Lord" as the counterpart, but I sincerely doubt that would fly, as awesome as "First Lord" sounds.

In seriousness, I'd say she has at least as good a shot as anyone else I can think of on the blue side of the aisle. My knowledge on the subject is limited, however.

[Tastyfish]

Gavin Newsom?

Oh god.

Just no.

But his hair can cut any errant Icebergs that threaten us.

[THE Bigzoman]

But his hair can cut any errant Icebergs that threaten us.

That's what i'm afraid of. Remember that scene from the Disney Movie Hercules where Herc "uses his head" to defeat the centaur?

The centaur is the republican party. But instead of being kicked unconscious, they will be mutilated from the sharp edges.

[Tastyfish]

That's what i'm afraid of. Remember that scene from the Disney Movie Hercules where Herc "uses his head" to defeat the centaur?

The centaur is the republican party. But instead of being kicked unconscious, they will be mutilated from the sharp edges.

It be better then if they tried to run with Green's Jill Stein. No offence but I bet you she has some oil paintings she has done that look kind of like vaginas ala Georgia O'Keeffe.

At least we know Hill-dog is hardcore. lol

[obdigore]

I'm a liberal and personally I think Hillary Clinton has always been rather incompetent, yet she's always lauded for reasons I cannot comprehend.

I'm not suggesting the Republican candidate will be any better given they are still pandering to extremists, but theoretically would you personally be happy with Hillary Clinton being the presidential candidate?

If she runs (and I don't think she will), she will most likely win the presidency.

Now as to your second question, I'd be happier with her than whoever the GOP is going to run, but I'd much rather have an actual liberal run and win instead of Hillary. I'd prefer someone who would push for a revamp of NASA, a change in how the government works with contractors, and some sensible regulations on banking and wall street.

However that doesn't matter because the GOP will retain the gerrymandered House and will refuse to do anything useful for the country.

[Sunseeker]

I would like to add: Hillary is a red herring, and a damn good one too.

She is drawing fire away from numerous high-profile members of the Obama Administration and keeping people from looking at the smaller mistakes of fresher members of government. By playing her up to look like she's going to run, Republicans will focus their attention on destroying her before she gets to the primaries. Because of this, they are going to end up locked into an attack pattern on her, and it will be difficult to shift the blame of these "big scandals" to a different target. (the best outcome for Democrats will be a split attack, with the same incidents being blamed on two different mistakes, confusing the public because the Republicans are giving two different answers to the same question) Don't be surprised that even if Hillary seems to be in the lead as we approach the primaries, a different candidate entirely becomes the forerunner for whatever reason. Without some of the big ammunition (Benghazi, IRS scandal, Obama, her husband's affair, etc.) the Republican attack machine is likely to falter, giving the Democrats a window to push their ideas while the Republicans organize a new attack on the new front runner.

This will likely lead to a significant Democrat margin as they will suddenly have a "clean" candidate (thanks in part to the Republicans making Hillary look so dirty), while the Republicans are likely to run one of either A: the GOP establishment or B: one of the Tea Party up-and-comings, each of which will have their own dirt quite well stuck by then.

[xylophone]

Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton 2016. We oligarchy now.