For the dems, who is there besides Hillary?

I could vote Biden. But, I think he would have a tough time winning, compared to Hillary.

Good to see you, Dark Crow.

I'd not want to see her run right away but I can see it sometime.. She now has a conglomerate experience, and did a wifely thing being subservient by definition for a batch of years now, which has probably not been easy. She was his boss, remember. (well, you do). She is not at all stupid. I'm glad she pushed all the health stuff, in general, though Ms. Picky can argue with this and that.

I don't see Michelle winning, unless she devotes herself to whatever it is that makes people perceive her as a potential president, after her husband leaves the White House.

I see subserving your every view for years as toll taking in many ways. Not that I know her at all, a guess.

That may be part of what sparks Hillary Clinton. I get we're hearing her as her now, but I take her as a most edited speaker.

Biden flubs but he's a guy I could stand to talk with.

Ryan lost a close debate because he had no ammunition. His positions were ridiculous and dangerous. Obama won the second two debates for the same reason. To me, Biden was an embarrassment.

Two itch his own.

don't get me started.

sorry, that was too easy a sentence. I tossed it as flip, but I pretty well care.

If (and when) Hillary runs, as an independent minded individual and thinker her motto should be just like that t-shirt editorial "I'm not with Stupid!" It can interpreted that she thinks independently of Bill or the Repugs - take your pick.

She had a rough week with media this week. She seems to bristled and fumbled answering some probing questions posed to her about when she was Secretary of State. Then there's the comment (distortion) about her and Bill being 'dead broke' of recent times. Then it was her bristling at questions from Terry Gross, NPR...about her revolving ...err, I mean...evolving political stand in her elastic shifting support of Gay Marriage.

She's gotten out of practice getting grilled by media. Should her motto be, "At least I'm not an obstructionist"?


It is appalling how poor the choices are from Dems candidates running for Prez in the next election. But they appear better than what Repugs are putting forth.

I am thinking more and more that she is NOT going to run...and that she will announce that soon enough for the rest of the field to get started on their runs.

Perhaps it is for the best...for her and for our country.

The scum on the right will savage our country rather than allow her to win.

I want the election ballots to reflect one more option: "D - None of the Above". If there are enough brave people that vote that way, they have to throw out the leading candidates and start anew.

IMHO, Biden is not a viable national candidate for Prez. He couldn't garner the national support and his candidacy would be akin to Dems handing the Prez office over to the dark side.

You just like his [manufactured] looks.

I'm no supporter of Hillary Clinton, but I believe she handled herself and her rather strident inquisitor, Terry Gross rather well in the interview (I heard the whole thing, not just the much repeated excerpts). Gross was trying hard to put her own strident interpretation and words in Hillary's mouth, perhaps for her own purposes. Nearly the whole country has changed its mind about homosexual marriages over the past few years, and there's no reason to single Hillary out for not signing up before everyone else.

I did not watch it but I notice that for four days CNN has been leading with the story on CNN.com, which is highly unusual. Thing is though that CNN barely even pretends to be a journalism outfit anymore, they are more the Hearst of cable tv.

I heard the interview first-hand, as well. Terry Gross was/is not what I'd call a particular strident interviewer. She is not a softball tossing cupcake...and does her job..and interviewing Hillary requires a certain...err...firmness.

Re gay marital unions: the difference is that Hillary is a leader and a law-maker who desires the Presidency. The rest of the country is not.

That being said, if she ends up as the Dem candidate, I'll probably vote for her. She is the lesser of the evils, based upon the choices on the political canvas of candidates - so far!

The international political scene is getting incredibly darker and the job requires exceptional experience and insight. I sure hope whoever steps forward is well prepared and well qualified.

I din't hear the interview so I can comment upon it, but it is interesting that the media isn't lobbing her soft balls. Dianne Sawyer's interview of her was far more aggressive (if Sawyer can ever be called that) than I expected.

Maybe it's because everyone knows the book was just a way to make some big bucks and set the stage for a presidential run and wasn't going to waste time on treating her like a retired Secretary of State and author (If she can be called that for providing notes to a ghost writer).

Or maybe its because they're feeling a little guilty about how they all jumped on the Obama Band Wagon and gave him a free pass. Naaah.

For the liberal media Obama was not only a history making figure and fellow traveler, he was a fresh face. Young, cool, charismatic, and well spoken. He was a fabulous story, and one most of them had wanted to cover their whole professional lives.

Hillary, on the other hand is old news, and physically old and frumpy. She's not charismatic, not amusing and she's not particularly fond of the press. She gets testy when questioned in a way she doesn't appreciate, and there's really nothing new about what she has to say.

Plus, she's a Clinton. The media is tired of Bushes and Clintons. It's all been told before and there's an underlying distaste for dynasties that aren't from Camelot. She's surrounded by the Clinton Machine, with the same faces the media has dealt with for years. The one who have played hard ball with the members of the press who they didn't think gave Bill or Hillary a fair shake.

Yes, she holds the promise of being a historical figure herself, the first woman president of the United States, but unlike Obama who was the only black candidate, the only black man who had an actual shot at taking the White House, Hillary is not the only woman with that potential. Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the same chance as Hillary, but she could become the Democrat's candidate and could become the president. She's not particularly charismatic either, but she's fresh, her story is new. There may even be another female Democrat waiting in the wings to come out of no where and surprise us all.

I think Hillary will run for the nomination and I think she'll win it and if and when she does, she'll get the fawning coverage she feels she deserves and can rely upon, but in the meantime the media isn't going to treat her the way they treated Obama.

Obama is hardly a fellow traveler. That is just another big lie from the right, something we hear all the time. He took over when the country was surely falling into another great depression, and saved it. The economy and markets have soared since he took office.

the economy has not soared where I live, almost no new jobs these last 2 years, and we are about to get whacked with more military spending cuts.

I guess to someone who lacks a cohesive ideology he is not a fellow traveler, but for the majority of the members of the Media he is. You realize don't you that you don't have to be a communist to be a "fellow traveler," unless the fellow you are trvaelling with is one. You don't think the Media is filled with communists do you? Sound like a big lie from the right.

The markets have soared since he took office but the economy sure as hell hasn't. I don't think even Paul Krugman would make that claim (but with Krugman, you never know).

Funny isn't it that the one economic indicator that is, arguably, most responsible for "income inequality" is also the only one to have soared while Obama has been in office.

And it hasn't soared anywhere else (except perhaps in North Dakota and Obama has nothing to do with that).