1. jakke says

    I don’t get the appeal of Elizabeth Warren as a candidate. She’s obviously very smart and great for the role of a politician, but as a candidate, she’s a big loser. There was no reason that that race against Brown should have been so tough for her. She sat there like an awkward goon in the debates and let him go on and on about that stupid native American thing. I don’t ever see her being able to stand up to the scrutiny of a Presidential election, let alone the primaries.

  2. Gregoire says

    Hillary was also crushing her rivals in polls taken in early 2007. I’d love a Hillary presidency, but frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised is she said, oh HELL no.

  3. Butch says

    I think the endless campaign stuff the media promotes is getting really old with a lot of us. To anyone who feels it’s never to early to speculate on 2016, please STFU for a while.

  4. RyanInWyo says

    Jakke: As it turns out, Brown was the loser not Warren. That’s just math. Or are you one of those people who has a disdain for arithmetic?

    Beyond that, incumbency is a powerful force. Couple that with the amount of money that Wall Street poured into Brown’s campaign (at least $3.3 million according to this Politico article and it’s easy to explain why Warren had a tough fight. But then she won… BY 7.4 POINTS. She smoked him.

  5. says

    Wednesday : I celebrated…a bit too much.

    Thursday : I recovered with a hangover.

    Friday : “I’m in love”……to quote a song.
    Yes, it’s time for us to get to work to get a brilliant accomplished experienced and serious professional person elected in 2016.

    We need eight years of Hillery….and America would become a modern country, not one obsessed with past glories and one more willing to embrace progress, not one espousing “Creationism” and “Every Sperm Is Sacred” song and dance routine.

  6. bcarter3 says


    “I think the endless campaign stuff the media promotes is getting really old with a lot of us.”

    So don’t read it. And don’t waste time commenting on it.

  7. jakke says


    Could you please point to the part of my comment where I acted as though Warren didn’t win or are you one of those people who ignores reality so they can get a dig in? I said there was no reason the race should have been tough and it shouldn’t have been. The state has liberals outnumbering conservatives like 4 to 1. Warren is awful as a candidate.

  8. Rick says

    “We need eight years of Hillery”

    As always, lapping at the feet of a woman who is opposed to same-sex marriage. Akin to lapping at the feet of women like Madonna and Lady Gaga who refuse to provide any funding for campaigns in favor of marriage equality.

    But they have vaginas between their legs and that makes it all all right, right? Right.

  9. Steven H says


    1. Hillary Clinton supported same-sex marriage in New York, as well as repeal of DOMA; she hasn’t addressed the issue since the President came out for marriage. She’s also done a lot for LGBT rights at State (both as foreign policy and for DOS employees).

    2. You shouldn’t use “Akin” and “women” in the same sentence.

    3. I doubt many of us spend a lot of time thinking about Hillary Clinton’s vagina; why do you?

  10. andrew says

    I really like both Hillary and Biden. I even voted for Hillary in the Pa primary over Obama who I was thrilled to vote for in the general. However, Hillary will be 69 and Biden 74 in 2016. I think they are past their prime. The presidency is an extremel demanding job. The dems should be looking for younger leaders. On another note, I think we should stop talking about 2016, it is too freakin soon.

  11. Joe in CT says

    Frankly, while Hillary still carries a lot of heavy baggage she would be a very strong candidate. I fully expect her to run. She most likely believes it to be her destiny.

  12. Derrick from Philly says

    Well, Andrew, 69 is the new 49…except for that damn Rick, of course.

    And even though I enjoy Joe Biden, I’d prefer Julian Castro’s smile…all day long.

  13. RyanInWyo says

    Jakke: You called Elizabeth Warren a loser… and I pointed out that she just won a senate seat against a well-funder incumbent. What part of that was confusing for you? By definition, then, she is a winner.

  14. says

    @ RICK :

    You are a bore. If your post was a first attempt at humour, it failed.

    @ STEVEN H : “Akin” and “Hillery” in same sentence……now that’s a witty interpretation of Rick’s comment that escaped me.

  15. I don't think so says

    If she could even win the democratic nomination back in 2008, what makes you think she would be good for 2016? Especially since she’ll be 69 years old by then? We need someone young like Obama to run in 2016.

  16. tinkerbelle says

    Reagan was 69 when he took office, although he is still the oldest person to have assumed the presidency. Hillary would be great, she just may be too tired, or just plain disgusted with it all. But then, maybe not. She’s gotta do somethin’ about that hair though.

  17. Zlick says

    This is going to sound bitchy, but I think Hillary’s been looking terrible lately, and I’m sure, like being president, the job she has done (very well) as Secretary of State has aged her prematurely. For her own health, I’d hate to have her double-down on that as PotUS. That job ages you at 6x speed.

    BUT – if she wants the job, God Bless Her. She’s a sure winner, would be good in the office, and we really need a Dem win after Obama to cement some of this vaguely progressive stuff.

  18. redebbm says

    As much as I love Elizabeth Warren, I feel she will do more good in the Senate and running her for president will only mean we don’t get the Warren we want in government, and effective person who has good ideas for the middle class. I called it at the DNC, Clinton and Julian Castro Would be an amazing combo to cement the legacy of Obama/Biden. We all know Republicans are scrambling for a way to put Rubio up so they can have bragging rights to the demographics they have trouble with, sadly Republican policies don’t look to be changing much and Rubio might not make it through the conservative primaries. Clinton hits that moderate left position the Obama coalition supports. Plus seeing big dog back in the white house again would be amazing. They got Reagan/Bush/Bush Legacy (kerplunk) we should get Clinton/Obama/Clinton legacy.

  19. jd says

    It’s a little unfair to resent Clinton’s opposition to gay marriage at this point if we’re going to accept that Obama (and many others) have changed positions in the last four years. Secretaries of State have a long history of avoiding domestic politics, and she’s been relatively disciplined about that. So, unless we are to believe that she was really serious while other Democrats were hiding their support (remember Richardson basically saying they all supported it, but didn’t feel it was “achievable,” at one debate,) we can expect to hear very soon after she leaves her post that she’s in favor of gay marriage.

  20. Icebloo says

    If the Democrats can keep black people involved at the next election they have a great chance of winning again. Unfortunately I fear black people will not participate in any election in such large numbers again unless there is a black candidate.

    The Democrats have four years to work out how to keep black people engaged in the political process. WE NEED THEM ! Otherwise we will end up with another right wing crazy like Martian Mitt.

  21. Icebloo says

    Some good points above.

    In her current job as Secretary of State Hillary is not allowed to be political – that’s why she was not allowed to campaign this year. The Sec of State is never allowed to campaign no matter which party is in power.

    I think it’s very selfish of anyone to take the position of Vice President if they don’t intend to run for President. There is a name recognition and incumbent advantage for the VP to run so we are WASTING this advantage if the VP never intended to run. We need all the help we can get !

  22. Icebloo says

    Good point by Rick above. Madonna and Gaga are just another couple of straighties in the very long line of straighties who SAY they support us (so we make them rich) but don’t actually do anything for us.


  23. Icebloo says

    Name recognition is a HUGE advantage in US politics. The Democrats need to pick at least four contenders for President in 2016 and make sure they get lots of good attention and promotion over the next four years. That would mean we have four possible, strong candidates to choose from when the time comes. This is a HUGE advantage.

  24. Todd says

    Please, please, please let her go up against Condi Rice! Could you imagine? It would be the most delicious smack down even the boys couldn’t predict. Could I vote for both of them?

Leave A Reply