ABC Poll: 57% Support Hillary 2016

I'm on Daily Kos Radio right now. Tune in.

Oh, here's the Hillary story:

Carried by a new high in personal popularity and broad approval of her work as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton closes out her diplomatic career with majority support as a candidate for president in 2016. Fifty-seven percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’d back a run by Clinton to succeed Barack Obama, vs. 37 percent opposed. That includes a broad gender gap – 66 percent support for Clinton among women, dropping to 49 percent among men.

< Senate Passes NDAA, 98 to 0 | Fox Benches Karl Rove and Dick Morris >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:08:39 AM EST
    It's time for some new in the country, some genuinely new, but I don't think we're going to get it. Look, Hillary is fine and nice, and the first female president after the first AA president, wow, nice symbolism, but she is by no means the kind of visionary and imaginative and creative leader this nation requires to keep us from committing national suicide, which we are currently continuing to carry out.

    Sadly, you go to other nations to elect the visionary and imaginative, the artist who has survived and persevered, you will not find that in the utterly unique kleptocracy that is this nation.

    There is nothing Hillary or Bill could do to turn me into the kind of fan of theirs I was when I was in my twenties. Mostly because, well, I ain't in my twenties anymore, and one, supposedly, gets wiser. Perhaps I'm not. Could be.

    But, like most elections in this nation, she'd be better than the other party's alternative. Again, however, that's just not anything to be proud of in the year 2012 in the US of A as something to settle for again and again.

    Phuck the roof, raise the floor!!!

    I'd be very proud (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    to vote for Hillary.

    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    Me too -- Proud to vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    .. eom

    The Democratic Nominee in 2016 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    will need to convince voters a third term with a Democrat in the Whitehouse is a good idea.

    Hillary's strengths of experience and ability should fit that bill.

    Who on the Democratic side could make that case too?  Cuomo?  Maybe, but probably not as well as Hillary.

    It would be hard for the 2016 Democratic Nominee to be an Obama-like change candidate. Rubio could be a change candidate.  But he is an airhead.    The Democratic candidate will necessarily need to make continuity look good.

    Hillary could run as the finisher, someone who can finish what Obama started or never got to in spite of his airy rhetoric.  And no one would  be a better finisher than the hard working, level-headed, and bright Hillary.

    Since we are indulging this look forward to 2016, if Hillary is the nominee she should pick Julian Castro as her VP.  Infusion of youth.  Her experience will more than make up for his lack of it.


    anyone but Cuomo (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by desmoinesdem on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    What an absolute disaster.

    It's not you Dadler... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    it's them;)

    Age can bring wisdom, or it can just create a closed minded creature of habit.  

    And lets face it, as you said, Brand D could run Genghis Khan and folks would fall in line and vote against whatever sorry clown Brand R trots out. Rinse and Repeat...no new ideas, no bold moves, and god forbid any god damn imagination.  


    Until we as a country do something about (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    this grotesque, surreal reality that exists in which no one can make a serious run for President until they, by-hook-or-by-crook, have accumulated  500-600-700-800..million in donations, we're going to have the same ongoing situation in this country; in which a relative few money-as-crack addicted shysters on Wall St are still in a position to potentially bring down the entire economy.

    I personally see nothing to be proud about in opting for the more benign status quo, when the status quo, with it's buried ticking time bombs, remains the main problem that the Repeal Glass-Steagal faction of the Democratic Party refuses to deal with.  


    Well (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    Isn't it almost the time for those who would seek someone new, or more progressive, or more inventive, or more....isn't it about locating & identifying said person earlier rather than later so as to avoid the finding of having the front-runners be those with whom you would never run?  The clock ticks to the inevitable "fish or cut bait" time (or other words expressing a similar sentiment.)

    Note:  I said "almost" time to allow for a little break in the constant campaign.  'Agree with Anne that a breather or respite from it all is in order.


    Monied Elites... (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    choose the front runners Christine...you know that.  We have no say in the matter, we're just supposed to vote for one of their two pre-ordained selections.

    I just hope Jill Stein runs again...she's my early front-runner for 2016.  If I only had half a billion dollars she'd be in business baby.


    we need someone new (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    I must have missed when Hillary was president before.

    And, maybe the Republicans (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    will nominate John Ellis Bush (aka J.E.B.).   In other news, the royals, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are expecting a dukette who will be third in line to the throne.

    I seriously have (none / 0) (#20)
    by Amiss on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    That fear.

    What, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    that William and Kate are going to be parents of the third-in-line to the British throne?  You're seriously afraid of that?  Sorry, sorry, just kidding.   ;-)

    I misread that... (none / 0) (#35)
    by unitron on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    ...as third in line to the Bush throne.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    Yes, Jeb Bush, and when he's through, then they'll run, maybe, Jenna or Barbara Bush, G.W.'s daughters, or, more likely, George Prescott Bush, Jeb's son, who has already filed the paperwork necessary to run for office in Texas.  Link.
    The "Bush throne," indeed.

    This is how dynastic tradition takes root (none / 0) (#37)
    by Politalkix on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    To the courtiers it is just the natural order of things....
    (When HW was President, the pariahs were Kim Il Sung, Saddam Hussein and Hafez Al Assad. When W was President, Kim Jong Il, Saddam and Uday Hussein (both of whom he got killed) and Basher Al Assad became the axis of evil. Jeb or the grandchildren of HW may have to fight Kim Jong Un to answer the call of dynastic duty that the throne demands.)

    ya think they'd have more toilets (none / 0) (#38)
    by DFLer on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    in a palace!

    Since, as you said, you are no longer 20-something (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    What Individual might you be interested in making a run for the Presidency in a few years? Would you align with that individual actively or simply sorta...based on what you know to date?  

    Fantastic discussion (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    On Santorum's horrific success in downing the UN Disabilities Act.  It was an opportunity to simply raise awareness globally too and make the lives of disabled people a little better all over the world and it is lost now.

    The Disabilities Act in this country has NEVER intruded into my parental rights.  We have had disagreements with two honored innovative surgeons too on what is best for our son because every solution is not for everyone, and my rights as Josh's parent have never been infringed upon in any way.  I suppose Santorum worries that parents who choose to heal through prayer instead of science may be infringed upon or something of that nature in some country.

    Hell if I can figure out how the UN is going to violate my rights as Josh's parent.  If I do ever get crazy though and decide that voodoo would provide better medical solutions and treatment for Josh though I would hope that all of you would consider violating my parental rights.

    Astonishing that this (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    unfounded paranoia about the UN has caused this failure......

    The Republicans and their delusions are truly dangerous and frightening.....Look no further than the imaginary WMD that UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix told the world wasn't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded.


    Was listening to Winkk and Justice (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    They played L. O'Donnell talking about how Orrin Hatch voted for the virtually the same act in this country 22 years ago.  Bush I signed it into law, it was once "their" idea and now it is the apocalypse.  The disability act is what keeps Josh safe at school, his teachers are all bridging gaps.  We had a small failure on Monday, his teacher who usually walks down the hall with him to lunch had an appointment to keep and Josh was in the hall alone.  Unfortunately another student running in the hall came around the corner and pasted Josh hard.  He was home yesterday with a concussion.

    Life happens, and the school will make certain he has hall buffers with him because Junior High is rowdy.  We were aware of the risk, discussed it with the school, we have had one failure but the school isn't telling me to screw off because Josh has protection via the Disabilities Act.  And we would never dream of pulling him out of public school.  In one of his classes his teacher said he is a group leader.  He must have this social input to overcome his perceptions of himself...to challenge himself to overcome his differences.

    Anyhow, it is surmised that all Republicans joined in to shoot this down because if they hadn't they'd be attacked viciously by the tea party and may not politically survive that attack.  The Republican Party has built itself its own private hell where they eat each other and are so crazy the majority of the country cannot vote for them.


    I don't get this (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    paranoia at all.  They're apparently worried that it would interfere with parents who want to homeschool their children, or send them to a religious school.  Where the he!! did that come from?  Yes, I'm sure that the black helicopters from the UN would descend upon some family in Spongecake Falls, Wherever, to snatch their homeschooled, disabled child away from them and have the parents up on charges at the International Court in The Hague.  Jeez, they need to get a grip.
    I wonder if Santorum, et al, would vote against the Americans With Disabilities Act if it were up for a vote today?  I fear that they would.
    I'm about to start pounding my head against the wall.  Is it too early to break out the Jack Daniels?   :-(

    PS And, yes, Tracy, if you decide that the best treatment for Josh is to have a snake-handler come and pray over him but do nothing else for him, I will be sure to try to get some legal authority to take you to court and stop you.  And this channel, in fact, already exists in this country for parents who decide not to have their children who desperately need to be treated medically, and has been used.


    I think it was another opportunity to feed crazy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:11:29 AM EST
    And never have to deal with the reality of those that are affected by this.  You would have to leave our country at some point and visit other people, most of the Republican base is so paranoid they can't leave the confines of their front lawn.

    There was a little bit of a fight getting the initial act passed, it was said that the country and businesses couldn't afford it.  And I remember that it turned into a stimulus for builders who were facing a really bad downturn.  My dad was swamped with designing and building ramps and access.

    All these years down this road, and having Josh, having access to most activities means everything.  It makes my family stronger because we go do stuff all together and nobody stays home.  If I need exercise and a trail is nearby, I put Josh in a wheelchair and off we go (having a healthy mom is key to his own life success right now).  We see people at his PT right now going through all sorts of ambulatory rehab, and those people are out there rehabbing faster because access and movement is safer while you are wobbly.

    Santorum loves to feed crazy though.  It is his favorite thing to do.


    Wasn't the original (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Amiss on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    Bill in the USA connected to Bush Sr.?
    If I am correct, what a huge slap in the face to them, among other republicans with some sense of humanity.

    Yes, it is one of those things I must (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    Acknowledge, that Nixon cared about clean air and water and Bush Sr cared about the daily struggle of the disabled.  No existing Republican is sane enough to care about tangibles these days.  If it isn't an invisible war with demons it's black helicopters.

    What's the rush? I mean, seriously, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    why must we do this only 4 weeks removed from the last election?  

    Maybe there's some kind of gum we could chew - "Politi-Cud?" or patch we could wear - "Politi-Patch?" that would ease us through, oh, I don't know, at least 6 months?  Maybe a 12-step program that would help get our addiction to politics under control?

    Hillary.  I'd have happily voted for her in 2008.  I still think her strengths are on issues of women, children and families, but I think it's time for the next generation of just-as-passionate, just-as-dedicated versions to step up.   Elizabeth Warren?  Well, she's new to politics, but she's only two years younger than Hillary, so I wouldn't call her next-gen.  I'd need to see her in action in the Senate, and see whether she can hang onto the things that got her there before I could suggest she throw her hat in the 2016 race.

    I feel like we're already looking past what's right in front of us - and there's a lot there we really need to be paying attention to, and a lot of people we really need to be keeping an eye on.  Feet to the fire and all that.

    I don't know what Hillary will do, or what she'll want to do; what I do know is that any issue or initiative she chooses to associate herself with will benefit greatly from her involvement.

    Hillary speculation... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    "...why must we do this only 4 weeks removed from the last election?"

    My answer would be that we sense the complete lack of enthusiasm for the newly reelected incumbent.

    I think that we are "looking past what's right in front of us" because it is not a pretty sight, and there seems to be absolute nothing that we can do about it.

    For me, my support for her will depend on what she says over these next four years. I think she has great talent and great intelligence, but her instincts seem to be smothered by her neocon environment.
    It would be exciting to see if she could emerge from that.

    And if she can't, we do have the potential of a Warren candidacy.
    At this point in time, I would welcome that. I look forward to watching her in action in the Senate.


    I would campaign my heart out (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    for Hillary. I wish I had done more in 2008. I think she'd make an excellent president.

    It's a trap, Ms. Clinton. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    Do not accept the "inevitable" nominee crap a second time.

    Amen. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:58:03 PM EST
    I hope she runs runs runs away.

    she's in a far stronger position (none / 0) (#14)
    by desmoinesdem on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    now than in 2007, when many Democrats feared she would lose to a Republican. She's not nearly as polarizing as she was then, and she's the most popular member of Obama's cabinet. If she runs, she has the nomination without any serious competition.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    wouldn't deny that she is the "most popular" of Obama's cabinet, but jeez louise - there isn't much competition there.

    And, I am curious - as Sect'y of State - What is it that she has done to merit popularity or approval? I am serious about asking that.
    Imo, all she has done is go around and say what she has been told to say by her neo-neocon superiors.


    Okay (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    I'm not sure how I feel about a Hillary run in 2016.  And thankfully I don't have to even think about that now.  But one of the answers to your question is a no-brainer.  Clinton has taken full advantage of her position to advocate globally for women's rights.

    she is the single most popular (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    American political figure.  I guess most people have a pretty good idea what they like about her.  She's smart, strong, no nonsense, hardworking and not afraid of anything.  She inspires confidence.  She is extremely knowledgeable and more experienced than pretty much anyone....but no, can't have her.  Let's find another empty suit we can imagine has the qualities we want to project on him or her.  How about a first term senator with no previous political experience?  Or how about one who was a community organizer who doesn't really want the job of president he just wants to win it?

    One thing is for certain (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    Neither you, nor I, will have any say in who is the ultimate nominee. When "They, who decide," decides, we will think it's us deciding, but the hook in our nose should give us a clue.

    But, it won't. We will meekly follow our orders, "Your Vote Counts!"

    Yeah, right. HaHaHa..............


    Agree Teresain Pa (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    Great post...  Didn't we already elect someone "new" to turn things around?  Love where this has taken us..(snark)

    "Polarizing" (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    She was only 'polarizing' then because they said she was 'polarizing'. She's the same person today as then. If they decide she's 'polarizing', 'strident' and 'humorless' in 2016, then that will be the meme again.

    you know what though Molly (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 07:54:43 PM EST
    women just have to say, eff off, she is not polarizing or humorless and she will be the nominee because we say so and there are more of us than you.  There will be plenty of men on her side too.  She's a shoe in if women will just take the "kick me" signs off their backs.

    I better rush ship those vitamins :) (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Also I had a pet duck (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    and kept watching for him to go lame.  Lame story but true.

    That's pretty cute (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Josh is getting ducklings for his birthday to raise and live on the lake.

    Agree so much with David (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    Unfetter the debate.  

    Supreme Court n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:59:30 AM EST

    With these last few comments (none / 0) (#18)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    in mind when does Barak Obama become a lame duck president?  Google says it can happen now, after his last election but usually happens after the next president is elected but before he/she takes office.  If Obama stops the "fiscal cliff" from happening and achieves the other good plans he has I guess he won't become a lame duck until the very end of his term.  I'm in agreement with Anne about not rushing into decisions so early in the game.  I would also prefer Politi-smoke than gum or a patch.

    I sure hope you aren't including (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    My comment about David.  I'm listening to the radio program and the discussion about filibuster reform....David is David Waldman

    No Tracy (none / 0) (#21)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    I was more interested in the lame duck situation.  It's just such a strange description regarding politics and I remember my father and grandfather discussing this as a child and not understanding it.  Now I don't really know when it could take effect this time around.

    I wouldn't think Obama can be lamed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    Until after the 2014 elections.  If the people choose a crazy House again he doesn't have much leverage.  The leverage he has now is highlighting how crazy the House is and going to the people like Clinton did.  I noticed the Republican's have had one meltdown because Obama has begun to do this.  How well Obama does in making them wear their crazy while not getting any on him will dictate how lame he is and how lame he will become.....all puns intended :)

    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    I seem to have more typos with auto correct than without it.

    That's true (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by sj on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    Without autocorrect my typical error is a misspelled word.  With autocorrect whole words can be changed without my noticing and the results can be much, much worse.  There are whole websites devoted to this.

    You should have seen what I was getting when I tried to text that Uriah Heep was playing locally.  I swear I almost gave up.


    Yes it is true and (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    since I text and e-mail my Cuban cleaning lady my autocorrect immediately goes to Spanish.  I have changed the applications to English and unchecked the Spanish to no avail.  It's like it's imbedded in my iPhone and computer.

    Oh, dear - I had tears of laughter (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    rolling down my face reading those autocorrects...I'm sure the hysterical laughter people were hearing from my office convinced them I'd finally come completely unglued.

    Thank you - I really needed that!


    I know right? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by sj on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    I can't go there at work.  I laugh too hard.  And everybody knows that there is no way work is that much fun.

    It Will Come Down To Hillary Or Kerry (none / 0) (#54)
    by joseph b26 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:23:18 PM EST
    While I like both, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, I would take a Clinton Kerry ticket in a heart beat. These are the heavy weights for the 2016 ticket for our next presidential election. They both have outstanding credentials that would be above anything a Tea Party lite candidate would bring to the contest. Lets face, this Tea Party "sh_t" will go nowhere, and I am sure any candidate remotely tied to them will go down in the harbor of insignificance.

    Joe Biden would be a third choice for me. If President Obama finishes his second term in any way near the way he finished his first, he will go down in history as one of our best. And, he would of created an opening for his vice President to move in and make the case for continued growth. The Left is sitting strong for 2016.

    Kerry will be 73 in 2016 (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:35:48 PM EST
    I am sure he would like to do other things than run around the country campaigning at that age. However, I do agree that the left will be sitting strong in 2016.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:17:47 PM EST