So, as I gather many of you have caught wind, Hillary R Clinton is the presumptive front runner for the nomination and many assume she would be a strong candidate and would dominate the field as early polling suggests. However I would like to (predictably) disagree. If she decides to run (which I both want her to run and not) she's going to have a lot of baggage to deal with and little of it positive. First, by her marriage to good ole Billy Boy that's going to bring back the scandals and drama of the Clinton years in the White House. Whitewater, Lewinsky, the mass midnight pardons Bill gave in 2001, all of it will come back and while the new generation of voters never had to go through with the Clinton drama (I for one was too concerned about getting kicked out of daycare when I was 4 in 1999) you can bet primary opponents and Republicans will bring it up and it will have an effect.
Second, she lacks a lot of good baggage. Yes she was Secretary of State and a Senator from New York and First Lady and she gave a great speech at the Women's Conference in Beijing back in 1995(?) and she traveled a lot. And that's great but does that make you qualified to be President? I mean what has she done for this country other than exist and suck up the national spotlight? Her singular accomplishment as First Lady is that her health care push was so misguided that for the first time in 40 years Republicans had a majority in the US House of Representatives and both houses of Congress (Republicans having a Senate majority from 1980-1986). She did nothing when she was a Senator from my home state, but New York is sufficiently blue these days to house dithering Democrats like her (see Chuck Schumer). And as Sec of State she traveled a lot but that's it. No notable diplomatic initiatives, no daring peace schemes. As much as I think John Kerry is a ditz (and I thank God every day Bush beat him in 2004) he's got balls. He's been globe trotting the world and at least doing something productive, or trying to at least.
Finally, the progressive left might not accept her. Her husband Bill still has the centrist label and brand and this clashes with the leftward drift of the Democratic Party. Also, many progressive leftists are envious of the Tea Party's success of winning enough elections to have power in Washington and actually try and make their agenda work. Plus Clinton is old. She'll be 70 when 2016 rolls around and if John McCain was too old in 2008 to run wouldn't Hillary be?
Thus this opens up the door to alternatives. Who could be a viable Democratic nominee in the post Obama era? Maybe Martin O'Malley of Maryland? or Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts? Other floated potential candidates are Senator Kirsten Gellibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Vice President Biden. So PT, is Clinton the nominee to carry the Democrats to victory in 2016? Or will her candidacy go down in defeat? Should there be another nominee?