GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN AND PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON?

Yes that is true,
I have a very good opinion about Jerry Brown.
good move.

Isn't it something that only billionaires can represent the Democratic Party -- the "party of the people?"

I'd vote for -- and work for -- Jerry Brown for California's governor in a hot second.

Well, it is interesting to know of your pick. I worked to elect Brown last time. And, I remember well his era. He presided over the fall of California schools from 5th. in the nation to 48th. It is not an accident that it was followed by decades of Republican rule.
And, what has Jerry proved as Mayor of Oakland. Are things substantially better?
I agaree that D.P. activists would support Brown, but I do not see any evidence that the voters would. There is certainly plenty of amunition to use against him. Although I work hard in almost every campaign, it would be hard to get up much energy for Jerry.

Hillary Clinton, if elected president, will indeed provide great material for conservative talk radio commentators and pundits.

Oh yeah the "If I become President, I will DO" kind of President candidate....Hillary.

For starter why not deliver and exercise some real leadership in enforcing the U.S Constitution NOW and "DO" now what is important like impeaching the current president and vice president for crimes and for creating an unprecedented expansion of Executive Power; instead of making promises AFTER and only then she would ACT to make change.

Does she WANT that ambitious expansion of POWER? Is that why she and Democratic cronies have NO interest in IMPEACHMENT? BECAUSE of the already EXPANDED EXECUTIVE POWER that all the presidential candidate is salivating?

Corporate contributors has delivered millions to her campaign therefore she has to deliver favorable outcome in return to them. It is okay to do this, but she has an obligation as a democratic candidate to deliver to the people, while she is still in the body of SENATE. If she has any clout, which I have no doubt she has, can use it to influence the current leaders to uphold the U.S.Constitution by impeaching the Prez and his administration for their apparent crimes and deceptions.

If she can't do this option after what has been done to her husband and the Clinton Presidency fail in comparison to what the BUSH has done, then IT appears that her loyalty is NOT for the AMERICAN PEOPLE and the U.S. Constitution but for the Corporate and her ambition to become the MOST powerful female of the Freeworld as the President of the United State and the much EXPANDED POWER that she is anticipating that the BUSH has set up.

Bill,

Why do repeat the tired old saw that Garamendi can't raise money? Have you actually looked at the fundraising totals for the statewide Democratic nominees from last year? For a guy running for an office "with no work," he outraised most, and did it without taking a dime from insurance companies and many other corporate special interests. And he did it without "rolling in" pre-prop 34 contributions.

Furthermore, I'll bet the guys at BHP who spent millions lobbying for approval to build a dangerous and unnecessary LNG plant off the Oxnard/Malibu coast would argue with you about whether or not the Lieutenant Governor has no work.

If you want to promote Jerry Brown's potential - or Lockyer's - you'll get no argument here, these guys would be terrific governors. But please stop repeating the tired old myth that Garamendi can't raise money and has nothing to do.

(disclosure - I am a member of Garamendi's staff)

I'm arguing that no one not immensely wealthy can raise the money to compete in a primary with those who are - except Jerry.

That means John G.,Bill L., and John Chaing and Antonio V. won't have the $30+ Million needed to compete effectively with Phil or Westlye.

John and Bill - together - won't raise enough under the contribution limits imposed by Prop 34.

Well, Bill, somebody ought to say a good word for our old buddy Lockyer.

He would probably agree with you: $30 million? Not likely (although he's still sitting on 10 of the 30 left over from the Campaign-That-Never-Was).

But, maybe because I'm not a practical pro, I disagree. I think Lockyer is just as potentially "fascinating" as Brown - and a lot less erratic. There may be millions of California Democrats who would vote for Jerry again. But I'm not one of them. I haven't forgotten his last gubernatorial Administration. "Colorful"? Yeah. So is Santa Claus.

Lockyer could run a campaign that could capture the imagination of voters. He's never had to in the past, but that doesn't mean he couldn't in the future. And I still think he'd make a better Govenor than any other potential candidate on the Democratic landscape.

Hey, Jerry Brown will have my vote. I believe he's true to his values, and that he is a visionary. He doesn't have a problem saying "ok, fine, you won't do what I want, I'll just find another way." Would that voters had more options like Jerry and Hillary.

Post a comment