You know who should run in 2016?

Michelle Obama.

Really? What are her qualifications?

I like the woman, but I don't see her as presidential material.
Not an insult; just an observation.

"Presidential material," really?

Really?

Name one president in the last 50 years who was, well, you know.

What makes you think she would excel at the job?

Karl Rove would lose his fricking mind.

So, you don't have an answer?

No sir, I don't. I am a tosser and my suggestion was daft.

I don't believe you are daft, nor do I think you would make the suggestion without having some reasons. I have heard others suggest her.

Of course, if she did run and got elected...A black Democratic woman in the Oval Office. Fucking Armageddon for the right wing. What fun it would be watching them sputter.

Politics, particularly presidential politics, has become such a cesspool of character assassination and high finance that we're seeing the emergence of dynasties (Bush, Clinton) of people already stewed in the cess (is "cess" a word?) while decent people run the other way. Barack Obama is a decent man I think, who got whipped by an indecent congress, so I would love to see him given a third chance. Since term limits prevent that the next best thing would be to follow the dynastic model which is currently ruling the race for the White House.

I don't want her in there.
She's not a fighter and we need a fighter. We need a woman who is not afraid to be a bitch.
I want a fixer, an Olivia Pope using all her tactics and tricks for our side for a change.

Jenni wrote:

We need a woman who is not afraid to be a bitch.

Or a man who's not afraid to step on some sacred cows.

Bernie Sanders.

I had to look up Olivia Pope. Haven't seen that show.

What the Democrats need - desperately - is an angry liberal. One who will stand up there and not refer to the Republicans as "my good friend" but as "that idiotic asshole." Speak the truth and name names. The Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "Welfare Queen." I've never heard a Democrat on the podium say that the Republicans made it all up and the person never existed. I want to see a Democrat who displays his or her disgust with the Republicans. Who will call them out on their lies and who will describe just exactly what those assholes have doe to this country and the world.

Unfortunately, the top politicians all belong to the same country clubs and are more concerned about themselves and their careers than about the condition of the country. So I'm not going to be holding my breath.

_Howard wrote:

What the Democrats need - desperately - is an angry liberal. One who will stand up there and not refer to the Republicans as "my good friend" but as "that idiotic asshole." Speak the truth and name names. The Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "Welfare Queen." I've never heard a Democrat on the podium say that the Republicans made it all up and the person never existed. I want to see a Democrat who displays his or her disgust with the Republicans. Who will call them out on their lies and who will describe just exactly what those assholes have doe to this country and the world.

Unfortunately, the top politicians all belong to the same country clubs and are more concerned about themselves and their careers than about the condition of the country.

Absolutely right -- except maybe Bernie Sanders.

Listen, we need someone from outside the system who will FIX the fucking system.

Starting with campaign finance reform -- get the money out of politics, and almost everything else falls into line.

That'll take not just a "reformer" but a fucking revolutionary.

Bernie Sanders is a good example of an angry liberal, and I have admired the man for a long time. Unfortunately, he's not the right man for the office (I know that's an arguable point; it's just my opinion). Hell, he's older than I am. I want some younger blood in the office.

I don't think that someone "from outside the system" would be able to move and maneuver as the system requires. We need someone who is well versed on how things get done, and with enough power - balls! - to push it.

Campaign finance reform is a necessary component of election reform in general. What do you see as the proper steps to bring this about? What limits/restrictions would you like to see put into place as far as finance is concerned? And are there other steps in the election process that you believe should be revised?

_Howard wrote:

What do you see as the proper steps to bring this about? What limits/restrictions would you like to see put into place as far as finance is concerned? And are there other steps in the election process that you believe should be revised?

1. Public financing of campaigns, like in Britain. Every candidate gets the same amount -- say a million dollars -- from the public treasury.

1a. You would NOT be limited to two candidates however. 3-4 would be better. Party affiliation would no longer matter, so RNC and DNC would not control the dialogue.

2. Some kind of pre-qualifying to get on the ballot, not sure what. Petition drive? State primaries? Haven't thought this one through.

3. Short campaign season -- maybe six weeks like in Britain. Maybe a bit longer.

4. Since our democracy is a winner-takes-all, instead of a coalition (like in Britain) -- which is a good thing I think -- there has to be some control over vote splitting. Maybe if no candidate wins 50+ percent, the top two vote getters have a runoff election.

I'm not sure how I feel about taxpayer-supported campaigns. Giving money to a candidate seems to create a connection with the candidate that tax money wouldn't. I don't believe it will ever be possible to restrict campaigns to only the money provided by the tax payers.

All campaign money should be collected only from individuals - actual human beings. There should be a universal limit on the amount of the contribution, maybe based on a small percentage of the median individual income. No corporate money. No PAC money. No Party money. Just people money.

All campaign money must be contributed by individuals who are eligible to vote in the election for which the contribution is made. No more out-of-state Mormons fucking with California elections. No more rich bastards in New York giving millions to a Senate race in Kentucky. You get the idea.

All campaign laws must comply with a federal set of standards to prevent vote suppression as practiced by the Republicans.

Gerrymandering must be done away with. All districts must be drawn as closely as possible to simple geometric patterns - I like rectangles - without regard to the party affiliation of the residents. If the overall election results do not comport with the statewide distribution of voter party affiliation, the districts must be reviewed and corrected as necessary, without waiting for the ten-year census. These requirements apply to elections for state offices as well as federal.

Primary elections must be held on the same day in every state. Fuck Iowa and New Hampster.

No campaigning or fund raising of any sort is allowed, not even promises of funds - in public or in private - before the first of the year in which the election is held.

Voter registration is automatic for everyone who reaches the age of eighteen. All persons convicted of a felony will regain their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison, even if on parole or probation.

Voting day is a national holiday. No one has to work, but in order to be paid for that day off, one must show his or her employer proof of having voted.

No business which does business with the government, or which is regulated by the government, may participate in campaigns in any manner whatsoever.

All good ideas except this:
"All districts must be drawn as closely as possible to simple geometric patterns - I like rectangles - without regard to the party affiliation of the residents."

Districts needs to be population-based I think. Otherwise farmers and ranchers, who are spread out, will have undue political clout.

Of course they are population based. All districts must have as close as possible to equal populations. But that doesn't prevent trying to simplify the shape of the district.

Until the last redistricting, I was in a district that was mostly over one hundred miles away. There was a very long narrow strip (essentially a highway) attaching the small area where I live with a very large area far inland.

What do you think of Martin O'Malley?  He was on Rachel Maddow as a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, and frankly he sounded pretty good.

Is he viable?