Democratic primaries...who will win?

I've not heard Castro's named mentioned but did see him in a list of prospective candidates for President 2016. Will either Castro or Warren get the party nod over Hillary?

Nah, they can't beat Hillary.

Castro would be the first Hispanic/American president. Would that not be appealing to the largest ethnic minority in the country?

Hillary, even against Dem opponents, will have to defend her record as Secretary of State.

Warren, is seen as a strong woman with a big appeal to middle class working families.

Should be interesting if all three are in the primaries.

Hillary will win both the primary and general election in a landslide.

Is she even going to run at this point? Heard she has very serious health issues.

Considering how much they can ignore... I don't think death would disqualify her.

PkrBum wrote:Considering how much they can ignore... I don't think death would disqualify her.

  
zombies.............

SheWrites wrote:Castro would be the first Hispanic/American president.  Would that not be appealing to the largest ethnic minority in the country?  

Hillary, even against Dem opponents, will have to defend her record as Secretary of State.

Warren, is seen as a strong woman with a big appeal to middle class working families.  

Should be interesting if all three are in the primaries.

Hillary's already defended that. It's only an issue w/ the repugs for political reasons..

Dreamsglore wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Castro would be the first Hispanic/American president.  Would that not be appealing to the largest ethnic minority in the country?  

Hillary, even against Dem opponents, will have to defend her record as Secretary of State.

Warren, is seen as a strong woman with a big appeal to middle class working families.  

Should be interesting if all three are in the primaries.

Hillary's already defended that. It's only an issue w/ the repugs for political reasons..

That's right, because her record as Secretary of State is not something people should consider as part of her resume for the job.   

She did a good job. It should be considered.

Dreamsglore wrote:She did a good job. It should be considered.

quantify "a good job" please.

Dreamsglore wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Castro would be the first Hispanic/American president.  Would that not be appealing to the largest ethnic minority in the country?  

Hillary, even against Dem opponents, will have to defend her record as Secretary of State.

Warren, is seen as a strong woman with a big appeal to middle class working families.  

Should be interesting if all three are in the primaries.

Hillary's already defended that. It's only an issue w/ the repugs for political reasons..

I think Dem contender campaigning against Dem contender will bring it up. It's not a party thing, only. It was a national issue during her time as Secy of State.

Gunz wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:She did a good job. It should be considered.

quantify "a good job" please.

I think normal IQ people know "what a good job" means.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Gunz wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:She did a good job. It should be considered.

quantify "a good job" please.

I think normal IQ people know "what a good job" means.

agreed...but in relation to her job performance I think the question is relevant.

The question was answered. She did a good job.If you have criticisms, that is an opinion you're entitled to but not necessarily relevant or informed.

Dreamsglore wrote:The question was answered. She did a good job.If you have criticisms, that is an opinion you're entitled to but not necessarily relevant or informed.

its ok...we get it. You cant cite examples of how she excelled in her position as Secretary so you simply throw out your opinion "she did a good job". Whatever

Dreamsglore wrote:The question was answered. She did a good job.If you have criticisms, that is an opinion you're entitled to but not necessarily relevant or informed.

SHE QUIT!

Couldn't take the heat.

Can't wait for Hillary to run and have to defend killing four of her employees and getting to hear her witchy voice say, "what does it matter?"

Dreamsglore wrote:The question was answered. She did a good job.If you have criticisms, that is an opinion you're entitled to but not necessarily relevant or informed.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62616

Gunz wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:The question was answered. She did a good job.If you have criticisms, that is an opinion you're entitled to but not necessarily relevant or informed.

its ok...we get it. You cant cite examples of how she excelled in her position as Secretary so you simply throw out your opinion "she did a good job".  Whatever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton's_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

Some idiot spawn of Satan will win....final answer.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Can't wait for Hillary to run and have to defend killing four of her employees and getting to hear her witchy voice say, "what does it matter?"

"what does it matter?"

Yes, it was really cute of Faux News to edit that video clip so the context appeared to change.... That little piece has been used to inflame the fulminations of the wingnut-base ever since.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/africa/28policy.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged Sunday that the unrest in Libya did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Even so, he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Obama administration was justified in taking military action to avert a massacre there that could have altered the course of the popular revolts roiling the Arab world.

The comments by President Obama’s two top national security officials, made on multiple political talk shows on Sunday, offered a striking illustration of the complex calculus that Mr. Obama faced in committing the military to impose a no-fly zone over Libya — one of the greatest gambles of his presidency.

It was a rare joint appearance by Mr. Gates and Mrs. Clinton, improbable allies who started out with sharply different views of what to do about Libya but have converged in the belief that the brutality of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi demanded a military response.

Both officials acknowledged that the operation could drag on for months or even into next year.

Practically completing each other’s sentences, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates projected the kind of unified message prized by the Obama White House. But that unity came only after a fraught internal debate, in which they and other senior officials had to weigh humanitarian values against national interests.

Their joint appearance laid the groundwork for a speech to the nation by Mr. Obama on Monday night, as the administration tries to answer critics in Congress and elsewhere who say that the president has failed to explain the scope, command structure and objective of the mission.

“Let’s be fair here,” she said. “They didn’t attack us, but what they were doing and Qaddafi’s history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said, and seen by our European friends and our Arab friends as very vital to their interests.”

For all that, Mrs. Clinton emphasized that the administration did not view the Libya intervention as a precedent. Speaking on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” she ruled out military action in Syria, where security forces killed dozens of protesters on Friday. She noted that lawmakers who visited Syria described President Bashar al-Assad as a reformer, in contrast to Colonel Qaddafi.

“There’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” she said, “and police actions that frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

Indeed, the administration has watched violent crackdowns in Bahrain, Yemen and other Arab countries without intervening. Only after Colonel Qaddafi launched a ferocious counterstrike against rebel forces did Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates stake out their different positions.

Mrs. Clinton, hearing the growing chorus of calls for a no-fly zone, particularly in the Arab world, argued for a stronger international response. Mr. Gates, worried about the overstretched military getting entangled in another war, warned Congress about the risks and costs of a no-fly zone.

Mr. Gates said his remarks were not intended to derail the push for a no-fly zone, as many in Washington believed at the time, but to debunk arguments that it would be a surgical operation.

“I said, ‘Let’s call a spade a spade,’ ” Mr. Gates told reporters last week. “It was that a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya. I think that was a pretty accurate statement. What I’ve tried to do is really just make clear what is involved in this, and that it is a complex undertaking.”

Officials close to Mrs. Clinton said she, too, made a point of telling Arab officials like Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, that a no-fly zone would require destroying Libya’s air defenses. She developed her views about no-fly zones from the 1990s, when Bill Clinton, who was then the president, worked with European countries to impose one over Kosovo.