The idea that Hillary Clinton has any “nannying” tendencies or any other significant difference from any moderate politician can only come from buying all the big lies told about her couched in a culture pervaded with misogyny.
Give all her supposed offensive qualities to a man and no one would notice anything off putting.
The GOP hate machine will gear up to make the faithful hate whoever is the Democrat Candidate. This was said about Hilary when she was running against Obama- that the GOP hated Hilary with a white hot passion, but not so bad vs Obama. But then the TeaParty fired up their lie machine and started weekly awful rumors about Obama. (Check Snopes if you dont believe me).
So, even if the Dems pick some new guy, there will be WHITE HOT HATRED generated. The “too hated” meme is worthless as that Right-wing wing of a right wing party would never ever vote for a Dem anyway.
FWIW, I’ve never given money to Hillary in any campaign, but I just got a “Ready for Hillary 2016” kit that included a small poster, four postcards, a bumper sticker, six small lapel stickers, and a cover letter from “Craig T. Smith, Senior Adviser.” It’s glossy and slick and can’t have been cheap. I won’t be contributing just yet; I’d rather wait and see how the Democratic field (if there is one, other than her) shapes up.
If she really wants to play it cagey, she wouldn’t announce until after she’s formally nominated at the convention.
Based on nothing other than how the wind is tickling my balls - I don’t think she’s going to run.
There’s simply too much talk about the inevitability, how great she is as a candidate, how she has a lock etc etc - it would feel too “scripted” if she wins (like that movie that telegraphs it’s plot so well you just KNOW a twist is coming)
I don’t think she’ll do it in December. Too many people are busy with their Christmas preparation to pay her much attention. January, say early in the week so get a full week’s worth of coverage on the news. Definitely before March Madness sets in and sucks all the oxygen out of the nation. If I had to pick a date, it would be January 12. Gives her all week of news coverage, then that next weekend she can make some MLK-related appearances.
I might actually prefer Biden, his liberal cred is much more established. Though the Republicans like to portray Hillary as Jane Fonda with a resume, she’s too conservative for my taste and a bit of a warmonger. Still, given the choice between Hillary and any Republican, there’s no choice in my mind.
Yeah, this is what gets me about people assuming that her nomination would be a forgone conclusion. There would be plenty of Democrats looking for options. Certainly, should she win the nomination, I would vote for her before any serious Republican candidate I can think of, but I don’t think her nomination is a lock.
Assuming, of course, that she even runs.
Her candidacy strikes me like Bob Dole’s did back in the day - nobody is particularly thrilled to support her, but it is just her turn and there isn’t any real option. She is Establishment, with all that implies, good and bad.
I expect her to run. Whether she gets the nom or not I couldn’t say at this point, but she won’t announce for some months yet, and if she is nominated she won’t win. The yellow dog Democrats (including 80% of the SDMB) will fall in line obediently, but the rest of the public will not see anything new to attract them, and lots of baggage left from Bill and various gaffes since. And Bengazi is not the non-issue the SDMB is so desperate to shout down.
She isn’t going anywhere on Obama’s coattails, she didn’t make it last time on Slick Willie’s, and that isn’t going to improve as the economy recovers (while the GOP controls Congress).
Nobody likes her. That won’t change.
Regards,
Shodan
You are mistaken, I do. 
I have a hard time seeing Democrats get enthusiastic in support of her. 2004, maybe, 2016? no.
I voted post-April because, in the modern media age, candidates prefer to delay an official announcement for as long as possible. Delaying tactics–like forming an exploratory committee, scheduling a high-profile meeting, and commenting publically on hot-button issues are a way to keep the press interested without much political accountability. Once you announce, you don’t have the same “I haven’t decided to run yet” get-out-of-jail-free card, and the media will either zero-in on things you don’t want to talk about, or start ignoring you.
I think she’ll wait until she sees how the Pub Congress is going to play the game to see if she needs to run as the Not-Obamas-Third-Term or Not-Republican.
As for whether or not she would win, someone who is not a Washington insider would have a better shot at it I think. Any Democrat governors thinking of making a run?
I think the arguments against political dynasties are over-stated. I mean, she’s only related to Bill Clinton by marriage, not blood.
I seem to recall talk of attempts to continue the Bush Dynasty.
A New Hampshire Dem friend who follows politics there very closely says Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has visited the state a time or three lately: Martin O'Malley - Wikipedia
I do wonder what all this baggage and concerns of dynasty is about. People generally liked Bill Clinton, the country was well run and prosperous during his time, and the only people who hated him were the die hard republicans who tried to constantly trump up scandals against him. Those people are already are going to hate Hillary hardcore, so Bill is irrelevant to them. And Bill is probably remembered more fondly in retrospect with the decade of shit that followed him.
Why is everyone so convinced that Bill’s presidency will be a negative for her?
It makes no sense for her to announce until she absolutely has to. Why start the official smear campaign any earlier than necessary? She’s already got 100x the name recognition as her closets rival (if any can even be called that). I can’t see her passing up the opportunity to be the first female president of the United States, so I’m pretty sure she’ll run.
Not sure where you get that from. Her favorability ratings are pretty good (although they’ve gone down a bit in the last year or so). I don’t think she’s anywhere near as reviled as the more partisan elements of the right wing thinks. I know a number of usually Republican votes who would have voted for her over Obama and McCain the first time around (much to my surprise.)
Who are the Republicans going to nominate that I could stomach voting for in preference to Clinton? I’m a Democrat, pure and simple. I hold positions, beliefs, and attitudes that align with the Democratic Party.
I have had sincere and heartfelt disagreements with certain positions held by every Democratic president and every Democratic presidential candidate in my voting lifetime. These disagreements are dwarfed, swamped, inundated, and made miniscule by my sincere and heartfelt disagreements with almost all positions held by every Republican president and every Republican presidential candidate in my voting lifetime.
The Republicans don’t give me candidates who align with my political stances–and they disagree with my stances, so why should they?–so I don’t vote for them. If you choose to think of this as obediently falling into line, that’s an attitude that doesn’t help political discourse.
As do I. “Nobody is particularly thrilled to support her” my ass.