CFCman:
I learned that Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is seriously considering running for President in 2016. She would be the first GOP woman to do so.

Missy89:
Does it really matter who runs or win the presidency in the US?

The foreign policy will not change and local policies would remain almost the same.

Corporations with vested interested will make sure of this. American Presidential elections is overrated. i do enjoy the season thou because it is always fun. That said, I would prefer a Warren presidency since it looks like a female would probably be the next president. Warren over Clinton any day! and i dont think the GOP has any credible female to contest. In fact, they do not have any credible candidate as far as i am concerned so far. but we will see

I am usually more interested in my city elections

CFCfan:

However, a campaign debt of over $500,000 from her failed bid in the 2010 California Senate race, and the laying off of tens if thousands of HP employees during her time as the CEO, could prove to be her albatross.

CFCfan:

Oh yes, the campaign cycle is never short on entertainment, especially on the Republican side.
Senator Warren herself has categorically ruled herself out of a 2016 run, on several occasions. So, it's likely gonna be a Hillary coronation as the Democratic nominee. In fact, the real race amongst the Dems in 2016 would be the VP nominee position.

As for the Repubs, I see either Jeb Bush or Sen Rand Paul (if KY law is amended to allow candidates run for more than one office), as the most likely nominee. Ms Fiorina may well be really running for the running-mate position.

Missy89:


Contesting alone might be good for business eventually.

Missy89:


Rand Paul's father didnt run as an independent in other to save his son's presidential ambition. Sadly, he is not his father.

CFCfan:

Yeah. As a presidential candidate, she could easily command 6-figure speaking fees. But as she's reportedly worth $30 million, why does she still have that debt?

Missy89:
Does it really matter who runs or win the presidency in the US?

The foreign policy will not change and local policies would remain almost the same.

Corporations with vested interested will make sure of this. American Presidential elections is overrated. i do enjoy the season thou because it is always fun. That said, I would prefer a Warren presidency since it looks like a female would probably be the next president. Warren over Clinton any day! and i dont think the GOP has any credible female to contest. In fact, they do not have any credible candidate as far as i am concerned so far. but we will see

I am usually more interested in my city elections

GuyFawkes:


Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachmann

Missy89:


The funny thing is if either of the 2 wins the ticket, they will still get huge votes

I like Condi Rice thou

CFCfan:

Lol. They'd be sure of at least 35% of the vote. Condi Rice doesn't have the political personality to run a campaign; she's better if as an appointee.
The Repubs could put SC governor, Nikky Haley, on the ticket. The fact that she has won TWO guber elections, in spite of her Indian heritage in a very red state, should alone put her in the Republican presidential conversation.

Missy89:


The funny thing is if either of the 2 wins the ticket, they will still get huge votes

I like Condi Rice thou

Missy89:


she stands no chance to be honest. Most Americans want another whitey. Obama's administration is very unbearable to them.

, I'm honestly not sure if most Americans specifically want the next president to be white.

itstpia100:


hm

NairaMinted:
It's amazing how people fall for the same trick every 4 years! Weren't we all in euphoria some years ago when a certain Barack Obama stepped up and promised change? When we went about with our "Change" and "Yes We Can" stickers on our cars and other personal effects? And what has happened since he came to power? Has foreign policy changed? Has the charade labelled "The War on Terror" made America any safer? Have terror groups that receive training, arms and cash from Washington and his ally, chief terror sponsor, Saudi Arabia, had these flows cut off? Have the corrupt corporate elite had their wings clipped or have they received massive unaccounted bailouts and had their crimes of unprecedented proportions covered up by Holder and other members of Obama's cabinet? Has the militarized police state war machine been abated? Has the economy truly recovered or fraudulent practices such as the fancy named "Quantitative Easing" which is euphemism for actual printing of more dollars been done to prop up the economy ( which is in reality a $17trillion - so far and counting - Ponzi scheme) make it appear healthy? Has a democratic government been overthrown in Ukraine and Nazis installed in their place or not? Is the world more peaceful or are we drawing closer to what may be a regrettable nuclear with Russia because some insane neocons believe in their mind that a nuclear war with Russia is winnable and hence those ABMs in Eastern Europe and senseless NATO expansion? What about false flag operations such as the Maidan massacre and MH17? And CIA torture programs, black sites and God knows what else? And what about China? You don't think they are next in line after Russia? What exactly do you suppose the "Asia Pivot" is all about? Are you actually blinded to or you have purposely refused to see what the self proclaimed " indispensable" and "exceptional" nation, the "bastion of democracy" and "defender of human rights" really is? How then do you explain the "success" in Libya or Iraq or the events unfolding in Syria and Ukraine amongst so many others - past and present? Or the refusal to acknowledge gross violations of human rights during the 50 day Gaza siege or the refusal to condemn unwarranted and reckless land seizures and settlement expansion plans in Israel/West Bank? Do you think any candidate puppet on either the Democratic or Republican platform will change the plans of the evil corporate elite that rule from the shadows and are hell bent on world domination?


If you put up this post for the spectacle that the U.S. Presidential race presents and wish to be entertained by it, then by all means enjoy but if you did it for the hope or change, then you are searching in the wrong places.

NairaMinted:

Thus, there is no real difference between the Republicrats and the Demoblicans, they are all part of the same elite, but there are differences between different political figures who are more, or less, aligned with any specific interest group. Thus Greenwald is correct when he identifies the various groups who would support a Hillary Presidency. This has nothing to do with democracy, the political parties or even her own views and everything to do with which interest groups she sold out to.

This is the moment when having a generally mentally sane Jeb Bush (and his staff) might be better than a clearly rabid Hillary (and her staff). This has nothing to do with being "better" or "liberal or conservative" because on all these levels there are not meaningful differences between the Left/Liberal/Democratic side and the Right/Conservative/Republican side: they are all equally for sale, they all represent a pseudo-democracy of "one dollar one vote", they all are a government "by the billionaires for the billionaires" and none of them gives a damn the 99% of the planet or even the 99% of the American people.

4 Hillary Clinton Running Mate Options She's Probably (Definitely) Considering For 2016:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: There are all different kinds of philosophies about picking a vice presidential candidate. And often, some of the biggest choices seem to boil down to this: strengthen your strengths, or diversify your image. Hillary’s husband Bill, for example, tabbed Al Gore for the bottom of his ticket, yet another Democratic rising star out of the American South — adding little appeal that Bill didn’t have already, but strengthening that brand. President Obama, on the other hand, went with a white, working-class scion of the Senate in Joe Biden, aiming to tamp down concerns about his relative inexperience. Senator John McCain, of course, disastrously countered with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, about as wide a gap as it gets.

Similarly, the Hillary could multiply that “Senator from New York” vibe by picking Kirsten Gillibrand to run alongside her. Gillibrand has carved out a successful career since being appointed to her Senate seat in 2009, taking over for Hillary after she accepted President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of State. Basically, she’s a potent and polished political brand, and she’d be a great compliment on any presidential ticket, Hillary’s in particular.

California Governor Jerry Brown
If you’re looking for a Democratic governor with high approval ratings and a litany of unlikely, impressive accolades over the last several years, there’s one name that really shines out from all the rest — Jerry Brown, who made good on his improbable first-term pledge to turn around California’s dire fiscal situation. He did so in a pretty unlikely way, too, asking California voters to raise taxes on themselves. And, lo and behold, it worked, despite being an approach that would make a lot of Democratic strategists’ blood run cold. Furthermore, you could hardly find a backup more experienced and ready to govern at a moment’s notice than Brown, who’s been elected governor four times across a span of forty years.

Of course, no match is ever made in heaven. Brown was the first runner-up in the 1992 Democratic primaries, clashing aggressively (and at times personally) with the Clintons. Furthermore, he’s a little long in the tooth, and would be 78 on election day. For somebody of his skill, accomplishment, and relative good health, however, that shouldn’t hold him back. The only question is whether he’d want to play second-fiddle at this point in his career — a very fair concern.