I’m sorry, you appear to have misspelled “make up bullshit to feed to their mushroom followers”.
There are 200 000 000 Americans eligible to run for President. At a WAG, there may be as many as 500 000 who have the ethics and intellect to do the job acceptably well, given the support of a party. There are literally hundreds of politicians in this country who have some experience, and could do the job better than a Herbert Hoover—that is, at least as well as a Warren Harding or a Jimmy Carter, or a Hillary Clinton. There is no entitlement to be President for any one person.
The hard part is being both an administrator and the leader of a party. Obama was a passable administrator, but didn’t seem to want to lead the party, and some of the party didn’t want to be led by him. And the party fell out of power without good leadership. I think Hillary was a bad leader of the party, because she made it about loyalty to her (& Bill) and not about cultivating a party that could hold multiple state legislatures. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes more than a cult of personality around one leader to have a major party.
“The Party” won’t have much say in it, as the *voters * in the party won’t go along with another Hillary run.
Let’s say she decides to run. She’ll poll in the low teens and finish a distant fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire. Case closed.
Somebody talk Turnip down from the ledge, please. 
she was such a bad candidate she managed to lose to a horrible GOP guy. Why on Earth would Dems pick her again? That’s like an NBA team hiring a short slow guy who can’t shoot or play defense.
God help me, I actually agree with Okrahoma on something political.
Save us from political dynasties. I have no interest in any more Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, Churchills or any other benighted political family successors dabbling in high politics. Surely we can find qualified candidates outside a handful of designated clans. They of course are free to do what they wish - it’s their right. But I can’t for the life of me understand the attraction to these sort of celebrity stunt candidates.
For all the talk about how the DNC screwed over Bernie and supported Clinton and screwed Bernie out of his rightful win, you know how they did that?
By convincing more primary voters to vote for Hillary than Bernie, and stacking the caucuses.
That’s how you win the nomination. And, even though the Republican Establishment loathed Donald Trump, that’s how he won the nomination.
Now, who’s going to vote for Hillary next time?
And the other thing is, Hillary hates, hates, hates campaigning. She just wants to be handed the office by right. Sure, if you handed her the Presidency in 2020 on a silver platter then she’d accept. But that’s not going to happen, is it? Hillary cleared the deck early in 2014 and 2015, and by the time 2016 rolled around nobody was running against her, because she had everything sewn up.
How’s that going to work in 2019? She’s going to be the inevitable candidate? It will be her turn? No, that won’t work. No ambitious Democrat is going to hold their fire for 2020 because Hillary is inevitable and going against her would just piss off the establishment. Because it will be obvious that Hillary is not inevitable, she’s a loser, and Americans will not tolerate a loser.
Hillary is done in electoral politics. Eh, she might have a use as a red cape to distract the Right-wingers. Look over there! Hillary! Might work, they’re still trying to run against Hillary even now, and tricking them into wasting time and effort attacking Hillary might be useful. But she isn’t running. Never happen.
Like any of the Kennedy’s ever had real jobs. I think that public service can be its own career and it can be a noble one, but acknowledge that it is hard to imagine in times of such cynicism. As I said, she’s not in any way ready for high office now. Just saying she could be, if she were to begin running for a House district or perhaps a statewide election that would be a good stepping stone at some point. I think people are too preoccupied with the wrong things in analyzing someone’s fitness for public office. People look at how friendly and folksy someone is, or whether they ‘deserve’ to be in office based on how much they’ve had to struggle. I’d rather just evaluate their basic character and then decide whether their policies are something I can vote for. I do absolutely believe that the higher and more complex the office, the more political experience someone ought to have. We’re living in real time with a real world example of why that’s important. But I couldn’t give a toss whether someone succeeded in business or was a community organizer.
I think people are asking the wrong questions and evaluating the wrong criteria. Having someone who understands how the system works is an asset, not a liability. As our idiot in chief now plainly exemplifies on a regular basis, you want someone who can at least conceptualize how things work. I’m not saying Chelsea would or wouldn’t make a good public servant – way too early to tell but I think she deserves a chance to be her own woman if she decides that’s a path. I understand that giving the middle finger to the system is cathartic and is the flavor of the day, but that’s frankly why we’re in the situation we now find ourselves in: an awakening by people who didn’t really participate in the political process but now find themselves roused to anger and want to tear it all down.
She got beat by a man that everyone in the country though of as a rich asshole elitist douchebag.
IMO, Bernie would have won it in a walk. Just about any other Democrat would have won decisively. * The DNC would be insane to back her again.
Bernie couldn’t beat Clinton, so there’s little chance he would have beaten Trump. In a parallel universe I’m cheering for Bernie to get the nomination just so I can say I told you so once he becomes the George McGovern of the 21st Century. In this universe, I just hope we can see the mistake of nominating someone who lacks crossover appeal before it’s too late.
Maybe she’ll run as a Republican.
I’m just of the opinion that dynasts should have no place in “the system”. I’ve got nothing against career politicians really, experience has its value. And I’ve never been a big booster of term limits.
Political dynasties, though - they stick in my craw. Smacks of oligarchism. Y’all really don’t want to push me on this one. I’ve already got a cat named Oliver Cromwell. I’m just a half a step away from reviving the Mew Model Army and purging this land! 
Preach!
What a cat-astrophe that would be!
That Oliver who made sure he was followed as appointed ‘Protector’ by his son Richard…
But… I always wanted to play in the NBA. 
The Democrats backing Hillary to run again is the Republican’s best strategy for a win in 2020.
If the Democratic Party nominates Hillary Clinton again, I’ve lost all hope for your sanity as a nation.
ETA: Chelsea Clinton’s an even dumber idea. For Christ’s sake, there are talented people not named “Clinton.”
No, NO, NO and NO!
No more Clintons or Obamas! ENOUGH ALREADY. The last thing this country needs is some entrenched dynastic bullshit. Yeah, I like Michelle Obama but why the hell does that have to translate into, “Gee, I wish she’d run for office! That would be so cool!”
There are plenty of talented people in public service and political office who DON’T have ties to a famous name. There are some younger generation Kennedys out there who sound pretty bright and have impressive track records in public office but I’m not even sure how excited I can get about them. All of this strikes me as a really sad attempt to recapture some fondly remembered past.
THIS THIS THIS There are many talented people out there not named Kennedy or Obama or Clinton. The past is the past.
LET. IT. GO.
Trump is a rich asshole elitist. But, obviously, not everybody saw that. Some people believed he was okay - and still do.
Nonsense. The Sanders campaign would have collapsed if he had gotten the nomination. The Republicans knew how to take Sanders down - target him on race.