So, that was a quick end to what could’ve been the ‘Pepsi throwback’ of presidential primaries

posted at 11:01 am on March 24, 2015 by Matt Vespa

Hillary’s email trainwreck has some of Hillary’s staunchest supporters “really freaked out,” according to National Journal’s Ron Fournier. He said on CNN earlier this month that he got calls from Democrats in awe of the email development and unimpressed with how the former first lady conducted herself at the UN presser explaining her actions. Even die-hard Clinton supporters, people who want her to run unchallenged for the Democratic nomination, are worried, or at least very uneasy about the whole situation. As Cortney aptly noted, some Democrats are saying this is what happens when you “put all your eggs in one basket.”

So, does Clinton’s email flap mean Democrats are lining up to challenge her? Well, sort of — there’s some folks trying to motivate California Gov. Jerry Brown, Al Gore (I’m not kidding), Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vice President Joe Biden to consider 2016 runs. Yes, it’s quite the motley crew of people who’ve never been successful in mounting national campaigns for president and one senator who won because her state is insanely Democratic.

First, let’s go to every progressives favorite, Sen. Warren. In February, Warren sent a rather enigmatic letter to Democrats through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) saying, The question is whether enough Democrats will stand up — stand up to corporate money and powerful interests and stand up for regular people, working families, and progressive values…I’m in — what about you? Will you donate by midnight to take back the Senate?” Many on the left, like Moveon.org and Democracy for America are taking this as a sign that she could be swayed to run in 2016. Hillary’s ties to the financial industry has drawn the ire of the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and this email fiasco has given them fuel to fan the flames of a potential Clinton challenge–with Warren leading the way:

Democracy for America, MoveOn.org and Ready for Warren all issued statements within minutes of each other, touting Warren’s record as a middle-class advocate and urging her to run.

Timing notwithstanding, the three groups disavowed any interest in the ongoing email flap, but instead said their efforts to draft Warren were driven by the issues. And they all agreed that Warren’s harsh criticism for Wall Street and middle-class advocacy is the right prescription for the party.

“Primaries are decided on the issues, not where candidates store their emails,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America.

“The draft Warren movement is less concerned with the frenzy surrounding Secretary Clinton’s emails than we are with standing up, on behalf of millions of working families, to those who are rigging the system in favor of the rich and powerful,” added Erica Sagrans, campaign manager for Ready for Warren.

“A contested nomination will strengthen the Democratic Party by holding candidates accountable,” said Ready for Warren’s Sagrans. “Senator Warren is already shaping the national conversation on key issues, but not having her in the race would weaken our chances of having a real warrior for working families in the White House.”

Well, for starters, Warren has said she isn’t running for president. Though she has friends, many will simply not give the money necessary to mount a successful challenge. Why? They won’t leave Hillary. Then again, it’s reported that Warren could split the moneyed interests in Hollywood; a lot of folks in the business have soured on Hillary, thinking she’s too centrist. David Frum noted that the Senate isn’t an institution designed for a raging progressive like Warren. So, she could toss her hat into the ring.  As Dan wrote earlier today, The Boston Globe wants her to mount a challenge to Clinton. Clinton knows her growing influence in the party given that she and Warren had a sit down in February to discuss, amongst other things, policy ideas. Is this the beginning of Clinton/Warren 2016?

In a throwback to the 1990s, California Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s pushing 80, was giving off 2016 vibes of his own until this Sunday’s Meet The Press. Citing his age, Brown said if he were 10 years younger, he would mount a campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Bad blood reportedly still exists between the two camps; Brown accused then-Gov. Bill Clinton of funneling money to Hillary’s law firm for state business in the 1992 presidential election, which drove Bill into a rage.

Al Gore was creating buzz. Noah wrote about it. Ezra Klein of Vox  had a post saying the former vice president should run, citing his ability to fundraise his possible 2016 bid thanks to his resume as a credible candidate:

Hillary Clinton is crushing her rivals in the invisible primary. The result will be a lopsided race once the campaign turns visible: her likely challengers don’t have the name recognition, party support, campaign organization, or funding necessary to force a real contest.

Gore does. He begins with a powerful asset in presidential politics: credibility. As a long-serving senator and a two-term vice president, Gore has more direct political experience and at least as much claim to the triumphs of the 1990s as Clinton. He’s also won more elections than Clinton — including the popular vote in a presidential campaign. There are few Americans who don’t at least know his name. There is no one in the Democratic Party who won’t at least take his call.

But Gore’s experience and contacts now reach beyond politics — and into venues that would be enormously helpful to him if he wanted to fund an expensive race. He serves on the board of Apple, as a senior adviser to Google, and at the mega-venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers. He’s also carved a path through finance and telecommunications, becoming fabulously wealthy — richer, even, than Mitt Romney — as an investor and mogul.

The problem, Klein notes, is Gore. He’s a “wooden candidate” that has a shaky relationship with the media, but he’s probably not running for president.

Lastly, there’s Vice President Joe Biden. Though he hasn’t made any of his 2016 intentions known, Draft Biden is up and running. It’s also “appropriately unpolished,” according to National Journal:

The new Draft Biden 2016 effort is a PAC and a fledgling website, RunBidenRun.com, with a full-time staff of two. When the site went live, an unfortunately cropped photo of the vice president’s chest—cutting off his head—greeted viewers, and the “Donate” page trumpeted a goal of just $5,000, while showing that $5 had been raised by Tuesday afternoon.

What the effort does have, though, is a network of former Obama for America volunteers who are resolved to boost someone with a last name other than Clinton or Bush to the White House. That includes Draft Biden PAC’s organizing director, William Pierce, a 26-year-old who has worked as a field organizer for Democrats, most recently Chicago mayoral candidate Bob Fioretti.

Despite the vice president’s lack of a campaign operation, Draft Biden hopes to persuade him to run. For starters, there’s a petition—which currently has roughly 2,000 signatures—urging him to get in the race. The group plans to build on what Pierce said is Biden’s grassroots support throughout the country, eventually hiring field staff in key primary states “who can mobilize the grassroots army that we’re going to have in those states.”

Draft Biden isn’t deterred by the millions raised by other candidates. With a stated fundraising goal of just $5,000, the group isn’t planning to produce “glitzy TV commercials” or an expensive bus tour, because, Pierce said, “money is the root of all evil, we feel.”

Allahpundit wrote, “It’s not capital-C Crazy” if Biden runs, though he aptly noted that we should probably drink some special Kool-Aid if he–in some bizarre alternate reality–becomes an unstoppable juggernaut in the general. At the same time, despite being saddled with Obama’s baggage, there really isn’t a reason for Biden not to mount a 2016 bid. Yes, he’s old, so this would be his swan song–win or lose. Vice presidents are usually lost to history after their service, and seldom does the vice president achieve a higher office than having the honor of being a pulse away from occupying the Oval Office.

Last December, I wrote that if he does run, Hillary has to debate him, whereas she could sit idly by and let her would-be opponents asphyxiate from a lack of oxygen from the media and donors. You can’t say the same for the Vice President of the United States, even if he’s trailing you. Also, can you imagine that debate? “Dead broke” lady vs. “butt buddy” Biden; where’s the popcorn?

Lastly, Biden has often told this to his colleagues about his secret to winning.

“You have to figure out what’s worth losing over,” he says. In 2016, he really has nothing to lose by running other than one last stab before probably retiring from public life.

So, in the end, the fledgling 2016 Democratic field (Biden/Brown/Gore)–that was mostly a throwback to the 1990s–has met a quick death.

With Biden, it’s a wait and see, although I wouldn’t be surprised if he just decides to bow out. With Warren, despite her firm statements to the contrary, we shouldn’t be surprised if she does toss her hat in the ring. This is her only window of opportunity. She will probably be considered too old after the ’16 cycle.

At the same time, she pales in comparison to Barack Obama when gauging the two as insurgent candidates:

Think back to this time in 2007. Mr. Obama already had emerged as a strong candidate. He had announced his candidacy in February 2007, and surged to about 25 percent in the polls. His early rallies drew large crowds. By April, he was already tied with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa (although John Edwards led them both), and he matched her first-quarter fund-raising tallies.

The numbers, if anything, underestimated his position. His political identity, intentionally or not, was forged from anti-Clinton kryptonite. Early opposition to the war in Iraq positioned him to challenge Mrs. Clinton on her biggest liability. His youth, unifying message and relentless criticism of special interests contrasted perfectly with Mrs. Clinton, who was seen as a polarizing, transactional candidate tied to the past.

The enthusiasm for Ms. Warren’s candidacy on the left is real, but it probably doesn’t compare with the support for Mr. Obama. She isn’t as sharp a contrast with Mrs. Clinton, particularly when it comes to youth. Ms. Warren may be a new face, but, at 65, she doesn’t represent generational change against Mrs. Clinton, who is 67.

And Mr. Obama had an advantage that Ms. Warren can’t replicate: the possibility of becoming the country’s first black president. Ms. Warren’s similar appeal as a possible pathbreaking president, as the first woman to win, would be matched by Mrs. Clinton.

Again, Clinton/Warren 2016 could help Hillary shore up the progressive elements skeptical of her on policy. Myra Adams wrote in National Review that it also has the added bonus of removing Warren from the Senate should this highly hypothetical ticket win in 2016. As a result, progressive obstructionism by Warren to Clinton’s pragmatic, sometimes secretive, approach to policy can be avoided. What say you?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Re-elect Al Gore!

/

RedPepper on March 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM

The problem, Klein notes, is Gore. He’s a “wooden candidate” that has a shaky relationship with the media

That’s an odd reaction for somebody who the Dems have maintained, for 15 years, should have been President. That Gore is not our President was the origin of that feeling that the Electoral College system is “broken”, and somewhat at the spur of that malaise that the Constitution cannot solve problems for the modern age.

Do Dems believe their bullshit or don’t they?

Axeman on March 24, 2015 at 11:07 AM

As Cortney aptly noted, some Democrats are saying this is what happens when you “put all your eggs in one basket decaying beached sperm whale.”

Again, Clinton/Warren 2016 could help Hillary shore up the progressive elements skeptical of her on policy. Myra Adams wrote in National Review that it also has the added bonus of removing Warren from the Senate should this highly hypothetical ticket win in 2016. As a result, progressive obstructionism by Warren to Clinton’s pragmatic, sometimes secretive, approach to policy can be avoided. What say you?

That the land, after 8 years of obama, will not put her future into the hands of one beached decaying sperm whale, and one dancing and cookie-baking fake Injun, who’s richer than the obamas, and totally beholden to her crony backers.

Political correctness
is an illogical doctrine, cultivated by a delusional minority, promoted by the mass-media, which maintains that it is possible to grab a piece of shit by its clean end.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:14 AM

The problem, Klein notes, is Gore. He’s a “wooden candidate” that has a shaky relationship with the media

This is also a perfect description of The Hlldebeast …

RedPepper on March 24, 2015 at 11:17 AM

David Frum noted that the Senate isn’t an institution designed for a raging progressive like Warren.

Explain Bernie Sanders then.

rbj on March 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM

Does the USA (calling all youth) want the Clintons, who can not even type a short text message by themselves, in this technology age, back?

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

the motley crew of people who’ve never been successful in mounting national campaigns for president

Gore was definitely successful in mounting a national campaign for president (he was an eyelash from the presidency in 2000).

Biden has run two national campaigns for president, performing well in fundraising and in debates. In terms of mounting national campaigns, I would call both successful.

Neither won, but who aside from incumbents, who has (shall we count the number of republican candidates who have run in and lost a national campaign)? You seem to be dismissing both because they can’t run national campaigns. But they have. Very well.

The only one you could make that case for might be Brown, given past performances and his niche in California.

Personal opinion here, but I don’t think you all on the right should so nonchalantly dismiss Gore. If Clinton were so tainted by the email thing (which, she won’t be, but let’s delve into the realm of fantasy here), I think Gore might step in and be a very formidable candidate. In fact, in many ways, I’d rather see Gore run that Hilary.

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Don’t forget John Kerry. Once he gets his Nobel Peace prize for selling America down the tubes allowing Iran to gain nukes, this “Genghis Khan” traitor from the Vietnam War era will undoubtedly throw his hat into the ring too.

iamsaved on March 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM

Gore was definitely successful in mounting a national campaign for president (he was an eyelash from the presidency in 2000).

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Poor Tom…he lost Tennessee, his home state, and, thus, needed FL.

Poor puppies.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:22 AM

That’s quite the line up of new and fresh blood the demorats have going; old, white, and rich.

Bishop on March 24, 2015 at 11:22 AM

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Gore
Biden
Brown

“Old Whitey privilege” — any leftist

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM

And Mr. Obama had an advantage that Ms. Warren can’t replicate: the possibility of becoming the country’s first black president.

What are you talking about?

She’ll be the first Native American President who will preside over the nation that displaced her indigenous people.

Star Bird on March 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM

That’s quite the line up of new and fresh blood the demorats have going; old, white, and rich.

Bishop on March 24, 2015 at 11:22 AM

Aside from Lizzy Warrenhonta, all males too :)

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:24 AM

>>she pales in comparison to Barack Obama<<

I see what you did there…

Bouncing Beatnik on March 24, 2015 at 11:24 AM

Gore was definitely successful in mounting a national campaign for president (he was an eyelash from the presidency in 2000).

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

2nd Place = 1st Loser

Bishop on March 24, 2015 at 11:24 AM

David Frum noted that the Senate isn’t an institution designed for a raging progressive like Warren.

Are you kidding? What better place is there than the Senate, where a progressive radical can spout a whole bunch of nonsense and never be responsible for the bad results of her crackpot ideas.

PackerBronco on March 24, 2015 at 11:24 AM

Well, sort of — there’s some folks trying to motivate California Gov. Jerry Brown, Al Gore (I’m not kidding), Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vice President Joe Biden to consider 2016 runs.

The Fossil Brigade.

Aizen on March 24, 2015 at 11:25 AM

I keep hearing about O’malley.

portlandon on March 24, 2015 at 11:25 AM

That smell…
Don’t you smell that smell
It’s…..
Burnt toast.

Cherokee on March 24, 2015 at 11:25 AM

And Mr. Obama had an advantage that Ms. Warren can’t replicate: the possibility of becoming the country’s first (half-)black president.

Never forget his mother. They ignored her, but the ‘logical’ Left will totally ignore Cruz’ father, though they never called Castro-of-HUD a “White Hispanic/Latino”.

Political correctness is an illogical doctrine, cultivated by a delusional minority, promoted by the mass-media, which maintains that it is possible to grab a piece of shit by its clean end.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:26 AM

That’s an odd reaction for somebody who the Dems have maintained, for 15 years, should have been President. That Gore is not our President was the origin of that feeling that the Electoral College system is “broken”, and somewhat at the spur of that malaise that the Constitution cannot solve problems for the modern age.

Do Dems believe their bullshit or don’t they?

Axeman on March 24, 2015 at 11:07 AM

Romney is a wooden candidate too, and we wouldn’t want to nominate him again, even if he came as close as Gore did.

Furthermore, rats wouldn’t want to roll the dice on him getting at least that close next time around. While his dedication to a hoax is near and dear to progs’ black hearts, they know that making a fake issue that Americans don’t care about the central theme to the election is a recipe for disaster.

crrr6 on March 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM

Hillary is a red herring. The Dem nominee will be some obscure black or hispanic person. They have the formula down now. This will bring out the racist minorities who only vote when the nominee is a minority. They know the Repubs won’t challenge that person because of the race card. Its foolproof. Watch and see.

neyney on March 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM

That smell…
Don’t you smell that smell…
It’s…..
Burnt toast.

Cherokee on March 24, 2015 at 11:25 AM

Are you kidding? It’s this.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM

While the Hildebeasts email fiasco and her inept handling of it are certainly troubling to many of her supporters/fundraisers, I’m told by some pretty heavy bundlers and big time D contributors that they’re far more worried about the Clinton foundation and foreign money issues. Some of them are “postponing” funding to see how it plays out. They can see the ads on foreign money, they write themselves.

TXUS on March 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM

Listen, dammit ITS HER TURN ITS HER TURN ITS HER TURN /SHRILLERY

ConstantineXI on March 24, 2015 at 11:30 AM

David Frum noted that the Senate isn’t an institution designed for a raging progressive like Warren.

Explain Bernie Sanders then.

rbj on March 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM

One word – Vermont

D-fusit on March 24, 2015 at 11:30 AM

Gore was definitely successful in mounting a national campaign for president (he was an eyelash from the presidency in 2000).

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

But he couldn’t bat.

With all his lice, that that “dummy chimpey” beat the Goracle and talking-horse Kerry are miracles of Nature.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:30 AM

Yesterday the beached whale went to the WH and stunk it up.

The meeting didn’t go well. The obamas don’t want her.

Afterwards she was forced to grab a years old pic. where obama ‘hugged’ her, to have someone post it for her.

The two families hate each other line none ever could. The Clintons can not ever forgive that such a dummy surpassed them “when it was their time”. The obamas can’t forgive that the Clintons are racists.

The D-latrine can’t afford two royal families and the obamas are not about to give the reign up.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM

Personal opinion here, but I don’t think you all on the right should so nonchalantly dismiss Gore. If Clinton were so tainted by the email thing (which, she won’t be, but let’s delve into the realm of fantasy here), I think Gore might step in and be a very formidable candidate. In fact, in many ways, I’d rather see Gore run that Hilary.

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

I would prefer Gore to Hillary because I think that if the debate turns to the official religion of the Democrat party, you guys lose in a landslide.

I would agree that Hillary is probably still your best option, baggage an all, but the email thing is just the most recent gaping hole in the hull of the Hillary Titanic with possibly/probably more to come. Just a matter of how many more holes and water she’ll take on before next November.

Otherwise, good to know that you’ll be true to your values and vote for a Democrat, no matter how big of a crook he/she may be.

crrr6 on March 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM

Wow, are Rethuglicans really going to push Romney again? Why are you people so opposed to fresh faces and new ideas? Pretty sad you can’t come up with even one original candidate.
Doesn’t matter, Hillary in 2016!
Frank Lib on November 3, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM

The two families hate each other line like none ever could.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM

Dear leftists, keep Killary the Monster out of sight and out of earshot.

22044 on March 24, 2015 at 11:36 AM

The Skank and The Slimeball…

First and ONLY rule when the Clinton’s are involved..
If it looks like sh*t and it smells like sh*t, it’s indisputably a steaming pile of sh*t…
Dirtbags…
Pelosi Schmelosi on March 10, 2015 at 9:27 PM

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 24, 2015 at 11:36 AM

At the same time, she (Warren) pales in comparison to Barack Obama when gauging the two as insurgent candidates:

Heh.

airupthere on March 24, 2015 at 11:38 AM

Personal opinion here, but I don’t think you all on the right should so nonchalantly dismiss Gore. If Clinton were so tainted by the email thing (which, she won’t be, but let’s delve into the realm of fantasy here), I think Gore might step in and be a very formidable candidate. In fact, in many ways, I’d rather see Gore run that Hilary.

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Personal opinion here, but that’s the biggest load of Left-tarded [email protected], errr I mean “fantasy”, I’ve seen posted here in at least 5 minutes…Bravo..!!

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM

Ms. Warren’s similar appeal as a possible pathbreaking president, as the first woman to win, would be matched by Mrs. Clinton.

Warren’s appeal exceeds Mrs. Clinton as Warren would be the first woman to win as well as the first Native American to win.

Warren is a twofer for the dems.

airupthere on March 24, 2015 at 11:40 AM

If only Hillary had the Native American heritage of Warren….

albill on March 24, 2015 at 11:45 AM

I think you underestimate the ego of Joe Biden. The man thinks he walks on water and can do no wrong, and he thinks other people see him as such. He’ll run for sure.

Nethicus on March 24, 2015 at 11:46 AM

Don’t get cocky yet. This is still the Democrats’ election to lose even though all of their candidates are evil ghouls. The stupidity of the electorate should not be underestimated.

22044 on March 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM

Media Yesterday:

Ted Cruz has issues as a first term Senator because Obama was a failure as President after being a first term Senator. A first term senator is not the answer for Republicans.

Media Today:

Elizabeth Warren needs to run for President. Another first term senator is the answer for Democrats.

airupthere on March 24, 2015 at 11:51 AM

airupthere on March 24, 2015 at 11:51 AM

And Tlaloc will be by, later, to “educate us rubes”, and to teach us logic and erudition. Sit tight.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:58 AM

The Democrats have a Hillary-type, with no scandal baggage (that I know of) and at least an appearance of respecting American institutions like the local police and the military (i.e. Sen. Amy Klobuchar.) The later part may be her “problem.”

RBMN on March 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM

In fact, in many ways, I’d rather see Gore run that Hilary.

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

So would I..just for the comedy factor. Gore is such an ignorant doofus, he rarely lets anyone hear him speak. He doesn’t like cameras, or recording devices when he blathers on. He dares to only speak to the cult. It’s really no different than any other cult figure selling mystical garbage to their congregation.

Mimzey on March 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM

I can fix this.

We’ll just have Jeb switch parties and run as a Democrat. After all, that is a more natural home for his big govt, liberal, progressive positions.

kpguru on March 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM

Despite their many, many, many, many flaws, I think Clinton and Warren are both pro-USA, unlike Obama who abhors everything about the USA except his Presidential perks. So at least there’s that.

talkingpoints on March 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM

I can fix this.

We’ll just have Jeb switch parties and run as a Democrat. After all, that is a more natural home for his big govt, liberal, progressive positions.

kpguru on March 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM

That’ll work.

talkingpoints on March 24, 2015 at 12:10 PM

Despite their many, many, many, many flaws, I think Clinton and Warren are both pro-USA, unlike Obama who abhors everything about the USA except his Presidential perks. So at least there’s that.

talkingpoints on March 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM

…because Pay-For-Play at the State Dept with Foreign govts is soooo “pro-Amercia”…WAKE UP..!!

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 24, 2015 at 12:11 PM

And Tlaloc will be by, later, to “educate us rubes”, and to teach us logic and erudition. Sit tight.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2015 at 11:58 AM

Yes. I’m sure he’s anxious to show us all the WikiPedia entries that the teenagers of the SDS typed out from whatever space on campus that their Deans are allowing them to occupy.

Star Bird on March 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM

O’Malley will be the Dem at the top of the ticket. If the GOP nominates a RINO O’Malley will be the next POTUS. Only Cruz can save us!

Conservative4Ever on March 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM

Don’t get cocky yet. This is still the Democrats’ election to lose even though all of their candidates are evil ghouls. The stupidity of the electorate should not be underestimated.

22044 on March 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM

I agree. If the past is any indication, the dems start with 200+ electoral votes. Folded into that past, is the “new present” of voter fraud brought to you by Obamas flooding of the country with illegal aliens and the information to enhance voter fraud using the information made available via ObamaCare. If the percentage of absentee ballots rises, you know there is massive fraud being forced down our throats. Yet no one seems to think this should be addressed. The audacity of–not hope– but lies, will catch us off guard. Too many trust too much. The “Big Lie” is the major weapon of this administration, imo.

Mimzey on March 24, 2015 at 12:16 PM

O’Malley will be the Dem at the top of the ticket. If the GOP nominates a RINO O’Malley will be the next POTUS. Only Cruz can save us!

Conservative4Ever on March 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM

If O’Malley runs, people need to sift thru his past until an old video turns up of him down on one knee picking a banjo any singing “Mammy”.

Mimzey on March 24, 2015 at 12:19 PM

And Mr. Obama had an advantage that Ms. Warren can’t replicate: the possibility of becoming the country’s first black president. Ms. Warren’s similar appeal as a possible pathbreaking president, as the first woman to win, would be matched by Mrs. Clinton.

How dare they? Those RACISTS! at the New York Times don’t think the First Native American President would be of comparable value?
How can they just deny this so blatantly and rudely?
I mean this IS offensive?

Or they think she wouldn’t run as that, because she’d never make that claim to get a job she otherwise wouldn’t get?

Yeah, I’ve got my stirring stick; and there’s some crap to be stirred here.

gekkobear on March 24, 2015 at 12:24 PM

Biden the only logical choice…for liberals I would like to see them stumble over each other trying to find a reason to support him…next choice, Gore…there is always a chance that somewhere, in a hidden medical facility they give him a shot of charisma and make him look almost human.

Those are the only two acceptable choices for me…

right2bright on March 24, 2015 at 12:30 PM

Despite their many, many, many, many flaws, I think Clinton and Warren are both pro-USA, unlike Obama who abhors everything about the USA except his Presidential perks. So at least there’s that.

talkingpoints on March 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM

Sorry, but you’re wrong.

Clinton is pro-Clinton and doesn’t care about the country. She enriched herself by playing politics. She isn’t far enough left for the ideologues. I’m not sure what she’d actually run on accept for the fawning on her husband (who is a sex-sleaze-ball). She is greedy for power and money.

Warren is pro-progressive and doesn’t care about the country. She only cares about pushing socialist and communist ideologies, similar to Obama. While she doesn’t hate the country like Obama, she also doesn’t love the country since America’s history comes from liberty, like sunlike to a vampire.

dominigan on March 24, 2015 at 12:30 PM

Biden has run two national campaigns for president, performing well in fundraising and in debates. In terms of mounting national campaigns, I would call both successful.

Tom_Shipley on March 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

I agree with you about Gore, but Biden, not so much. In his first try, his fund-raising edge was limited to the first quarter of 1987, and he never even made it to the Iowa caucuses, having to drop out because of the plagiarism scandal (the terms “successful” and “plagiarism” really can’t be associated in any situation, much less a presidential campaign).

The second time around, while he might have done well in the debates (depending on your perspective), he finished fifth in Iowa with less than 1% of the vote, and dropped out that night. It’s true he wound up on the ticket with Obama, but that might well have happened even if he hadn’t run.

In either case, calling his presidential campaigns “successful” really is a big, big stretch.

Athanasius on March 24, 2015 at 12:53 PM

O’Malley… brought to you by the same state that elected Spiro Agnew…

Khun Joe on March 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM

What say I?

I’d say Warren being within shouting distance of becoming POTUS is FAR, FAR more scary that her being just one of a hundred senators.

Anyone proposing that Warren, as backup to a 70-year-old Hillary, would be a good thing doesn’t have their thinking-cap on.

Carnac on March 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM

And Mr. Obama had an advantage that Ms. Warren can’t replicate: the possibility of becoming the country’s first black president.

wrong!

we all know Bubba was the First Black President(tm). he was just a “white african american”.

WaldoTJ on March 24, 2015 at 1:38 PM

Well if anyone would know how killary fanboys are it would be Ron Foreskin.

bbinfl on March 24, 2015 at 1:41 PM

Operation Chaos for Biden?

Iblis on March 24, 2015 at 1:47 PM

Heck, I’d almost like to see a Biden presidency. Talk about comedy gold, lol. It’s not like this ship is ever going to be righted anyway, so why not? May as well laugh a little on the way down.

xblade on March 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM

So, in the end, the fledgling 2016 Democratic field (Biden/Brown/Gore)–that was mostly a throwback to the 1990s–has met a quick death.

Because Hillary isn’t going anywhere. The nomination is hers if she wants it.

Gee, I feel like someone was telling you all this last week when you just knew th email kerfuffle would end her candidacy…

Oh, yeah it was me. Hey, that means I was right. You know- again.

P.S. Yes the email story has now fallen to the level of a “kerfuffle.” Again– I told you so.

Tlaloc on March 24, 2015 at 1:59 PM

Yes. I’m sure he’s anxious to show us all the WikiPedia entries that the teenagers of the SDS typed out from whatever space on campus that their Deans are allowing them to occupy.

Star Bird on March 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM

Oh starbird, still refusing to learn from people way smarter than you…that’s what makes you special.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106930

Tlaloc on March 24, 2015 at 2:03 PM

P.S. Yes the email story has now fallen to the level of a “kerfuffle.” Again- I told you so.
Tlaloc on March 24, 2015 at 1:59 PM

Yeah, You know well your Party’s and their captive media’s tolerance for corruption, stupidity and evil.

Congratulations for being one of the few people at Hot Air that actually understands that society has devolved as far as it has and that no one wants a Democrat to be held to any actual standards of morality, logic or accountability.

LegendHasIt on March 24, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Michelle Obama. I hate to say it, but what prevents them from pushing her as Obama 2.0?

SpaceManSpiff on March 24, 2015 at 2:38 PM

If you think Killary is shrill, wait til we get a earful of Lizzy. She’s so far left of the boy king that there are probably a lot of union bosses who won’t vote for her. At least with the Clintoons, we know all we’ll lose is a few billion and some fine china.

Kissmygrits on March 24, 2015 at 5:15 PM

Clinton, Gore, Warren and Biden………why does the song “Send in the Clowns” keep echoing in my head?

As for Lizzy Fauxahontus Warren, she’s dead meat. The only idiots who will vote for her are Massholes. And given her penchant for knocking big business, WHAT’S IN HER STOCK PORTFOLIO?

GarandFan on March 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM

I don’t think any of those here who are lamenting “wooden” candidates really understand the process. Candidates who are real people, exciting and alive like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain, get mowed down just as fast as they can stand up, and a lot of you here do the mowing.

Tyrone Slothrop on March 24, 2015 at 5:39 PM

It doesn’t much matter who the libtards nominate. They could nominate a venereal wart and it would win against a RINO-moderate-progressive pig like jebbyclown.

There is only one thing that will save this country, and that is conservatism. That is why the left is so dead set against it of course, they want complete collapse.

Fine. We should help them along if the populace wont use common sense because the result of their desire for collapse will be the complete and total eradication of everything leftist, once and for all. I look forward to it.

Andy__B on March 24, 2015 at 6:12 PM

The new Draft Biden 2016 effort is a PAC and a fledgling website, RunBidenRun.com, with a full-time staff of two. When the site went live, an unfortunately cropped photo of the vice president’s chest—cutting off his head—greeted viewers, and the “Donate” page trumpeted a goal of just $5,000, while showing that $5 had been raised by Tuesday afternoon.

That’s hilarious. I guess the people running his PAC are as clownish as Biden is.

cat_owner on March 24, 2015 at 8:39 PM