2016 Presidential Campaign

[Breadburner]

Who the dems got as back-up.....Biden.....Gore.....

[Townsend]

Who the dems got as back-up.....Biden.....Gore.....

Well looking at the GOP field so far, the Dems could get just about anyone with a pulse.

[Breadburner]

Well looking at the GOP field so far, the Dems could get just about anyone with a pulse.

That leaves out those two.....Who else....??

[Townsend]

That leaves out those two.....Who else....??

What's the point?  Any guess will be attacked.

[Breadburner]

O Ok......

[Townsend]

O Ok......

Go ahead, give it a shot.

[Breadburner]

Go ahead, give it a shot.

Shot of what....

[Townsend]

Shot of what....

Good job

[Breadburner]

Good job

Was that an attack....?

[Townsend]

Was that an attack....?

Yes

[Breadburner]

Yes

Try harder.....!!!

[rebound]

OK, I'll bite.   First,  why do they need a backup? 

But if Hillary should decide for what ever reason not to run, there are others.   Elizabeth Warren (who has declined) and Bernie Sanders are both favorites of the liberal wing, but are generally considered by many to be too liberal to win.  (As I write that, it's interesting that the Dems understand when someone is too liberal to win the general election, but the GOP seems to have no concept of being too conservative...)  Given that Hillary has been the de facto nominee for a while, the other possible candidates have apparently decided to sit this round out.

For fairly exhaustive list of possible future Dem candidates (along with some perennial wackos) see this wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

[Gaspar]

OK, I'll bite.   First,  why do they need a backup? 

But if Hillary should decide for what ever reason not to run, there are others.   Elizabeth Warren (who has declined) and Bernie Sanders are both favorites of the liberal wing, but are generally considered by many to be too liberal to win.  (As I write that, it's interesting that the Dems understand when someone is too liberal to win the general election, but the GOP seems to have no concept of being too conservative...)  Given that Hillary has been the de facto nominee for a while, the other possible candidates have apparently decided to sit this round out.

For fairly exhaustive list of possible future Dem candidates (along with some perennial wackos) see this wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

The folks you mention are people.  Hillary is not just a person.  Of course now it is official that she is running, but there was neither any doubt, or any choice.

Hillary is a conglomeration of Wall Street groups, investment attorneys, and global media interests. 

She is a mutual fund of:
Citigroup
Goldman Sachs
Time Warner
Lehman Brothers
Morgan Stanley
Merrill Lynch
Ernst & Young
Creidt Suisse
DLA Piper
21st Century Fox

The right-wing media is trying to pin her down as Obama 2.0, but that is far from the truth.  Obama was very pro-personal-legacy, frequently going up against principals that make domestic, economic, or foreign policy sense in preference for decisions that would have personal historic significance. He was never a team player or, in any way a leader.  Hillary is both very team oriented and understands the principals of leadership.  She has had the best of mentors, and is guided by economic juggernauts that are in all reality to big to (allow her) to fail!  Fox News will look even more stupid than usual if they continue down this path of attempting to frame her as a novice. 

From an environmental standpoint, issues will go back to being driven by economic pressures instead emotional politicking, and the 'liberal' environmental message will again be crafted by the Clinton era corporate PR firms, instead of the current manic modulation between the players that the media chooses.  We should see a return to Pay-to-play environmentalism where corporations are expected to funnel money to environmental interests directly, instead of through inept government channeling.  Much like during Bill's tenure, we should also see 'liberalism' become less angular.

These corporate run presidencies typically make decisions that are very pro-business and pro-growth.  They also engage in foreign policy more related to profit than legacy building, because decisions require "board approval."  Sure, with the Clintons, there will be lots of clandestine activity, secret communications apparatuses, and perhaps the occasional missing person, but none of it will be allowed to tarnish Hillary.

I don't see a Hillary presidency as being too bad. We won't see any expansion in freedom, but we won't see much contraction either, and there will certainly be more economic opportunity.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hillary is a conglomeration of Wall Street groups, investment attorneys, and global media interests. 

She is a mutual fund of:

Lehman Brothers

They are gone now.  This is the one where Baby Bush's second cousin worked - one of the guys who helped run it into the ground... But luckily for the balance of the universe, he landed on his feet and is not CEO of Neuberger Berman, so at least he is doing ok!  Thank God!!   (Not the little touch of sarcasm at the end...)

[Conan71]

I agree with Gaspar, if Clinton I's admin is any illustration, I don't think Hillary would do a bad job.  Let's face it, other than our sitting president or any of the former living ones, there's not really anyone around with her innate knowledge of the presidency and how all the pieces of D.C. politics fit together.

I am curious though as to when the meek and downtrodden going to realize they still are not better off due to on and off Democrat control of the White House and alternating control of the Senate and House over the last couple of decades.  The Democrat party is no more interested in the plight of the underclasses than the Republicans are.