Other Than Hillary Clinton, What Woman Could Be A Viable Presidential Nominee In 2016?

Hillary Clinton is considered highly likely to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016, and most think she will, ultimately, decide to run, although there are those who have doubts.

But if Hillary chose not to run, is there any other woman who could be seen as a viable candidate for the White House in 2016?

On the Republican side, really no one is ready and able to mount a serious race, as members of the House of Representatives have never been the nominee of a major political party, other than President James A. Garfield in 1880, and he was, tragically, assassinated in 1881, after serving only a few months in the Presidency.

Yes, there are a few Republicans women governors, but to believe that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez or Kansas Governor Mary Fallin can be considered serious Presidential candidates is to be delusional.

As far as women Senators in the Republican Party, there are the highly qualified Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, but neither seems interested or, really viable, as a Presidential nominee. New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte might be interested, but is not seen by many as a heavyweight in the party apparatus, but rather a person who hangs around Arizona Senator John McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham more than is wise to do.

Of course, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is loved by the Tea Party Movement, but it is laughable to imagine her running, and she has absolutely no chance to win the nomination.

Condoleezza Rice is well qualified, but the former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, has always turned down any pressure to run for high office!

So, realistically, if there is to be a woman President, and other than Hillary Clinton, it will have to be a Democrat–and realistically it would be a Senator–one of three, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, or Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Warren would be popular with the leftist base in the Democratic Party, but has been in the Senate only one year, and would be 67 in 2016, just two years younger than Hillary Clinton. She inspires many people, including this author, and would fight Wall Street, which few others would.

Gillibrand has been in the Senate since 2010, and is very active and inspiring, but she comes from a state where Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo compete for support, and it is hard to imagine her at age 50 in 2016, being able to mount a campaign for President in 2016. She has made the fight against sexual abuse in the military a major issue, which has been under the radar for much too long.

So that leaves Klobuchar, who has served in the Senate since 2007, and is regarded very highly for her state government experience as Hennepin County (Minneapolis) Attorney for eight years, and can appeal to the heartland of the nation in a way that neither Warren nor Gillibrand could do. Her personality and communication ability is just as good, if not better, than Warren or Gillbrand, and at age 56 in 2016, she is closer to the ideal age to run for President. She is someone with a great progressive record, who has been too often overlooked by news media and others who follow politics.

But one thing is clear: No one is as qualified or outstanding among women politicians as Hillary Rodham Clinton! She has her faults and shortcomings, but no one matches her credentials!