General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow come Hillary supporters can't present an argument for her?
I've yet to see an OP that poses a positive argument why she should be our nominee.
No one claims she'd be a fighter for preserving and augmenting social security.
No one can claim that she isn't beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests.
No one can tell me why a progressive should support her in the primaries.
That she's the frontrunner is evident. That she has heavy hitters behind her is well known.
Now why would any progressive support her?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That makes no sense.
cali
(114,904 posts)she needs us. There are even more dems who are furious about corporations and their control of elections.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Why should Progressives support her? Like I said, that would make no sense.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)or inferred.. There is no reason for a progressive to support her in the primaries.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)But then sometimes I get confused by all these complicated ideas.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/joseph-farah/what-is-a-progressive.html
But I guess you will tell me next that you are the sole arbiter of what a Progressive is next...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You certainly are entitled to your own.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Which is anything but progressive.
As for the definition of "progressive," as a Cheesehead I look to Bob LaFollette as a role model for my definition.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That might be a start to get a couple to actually put their names on there. The Tea Party Caucus has a number of Senators signed on.
That's a problem that needs to be addressed. I've pretty much only heard crickets on this reality.
I agree with the local/state argument, but not as the only possible politically correct thing to do until 2014. These races don't occur in a national vacuum, and especially when the angst is so high.
There's this billion dollar campaign fund...another Cricket Reality, which hardly supports shunning all corporate support...donation or politically. Very UnProgressive PC.
I see 20 years of 3 Bushes in the wings. It frightens me into giving Hillary the nod until someone else shows up...a real candidate with the ability to raise the billion dollars...and all the other incredible personal and family sacrifices necessary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and they a Presidential Candidate that is one....oh well.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Senate Member
Bernie Sanders
House Members, etc.
On Edit: Alan Grayson is listed.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but not holding my breath
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)for our causes where it really matters and especially when we have a stacked Republican House...a Senate vote. People think we're going to get someone to magically appear that won't even put their name/identify as Progressive on a Caucus? I don't think so.
And I love Bernie and believe that, lord help us, he may be the voice in the Liberal wilderness to educate a new generation of the public/voters that maybe don't think that Liberals eat babies or some such Dittohead sludge used to relegate real Liberals into the dark basement of politics. But I won't vote for him. That's a vote for Jeb Bush (likely) and I'm not about to in any way, shape or form, enable 20 years and 3 administrations of Bushes. Give me 16 years of Clintons any day.
And I really, really don't like Bill and Hillary is not my first choice, yet I'm tiring with my "Billion Dollar Candidate" and the "Corporations provide our consumer goods, most utilities, the roof over our heads, services, transportation, infrastructure contractors, airlines, trains, national trade, so getting rid of them is unlikely" arguments. The logic eludes me.
TPP I agree with and we should do everything we can to at least tone it down, if not defeat it. But we go back to paragraph one for the logical answer. Nixon is the true origin and the one to blame, for historical reasons I have posted before.
I want only organic food raised on local farms, too, and there are many good reasons like it increases our health care costs that I have to help foot, but it's unlikely to get rid of Big Agriculture.
So I'm a Liberal, but Pragmatic Democrat.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am never going to get a candidate that suits all my needs....it will just never happen. I recognize that. But I also vote defensive....
Pragmatic Democrat is a very good description. I don't JUST want a Liberal Progressive Democrat. I want one that will BEAT the tar out of the Republican candidate.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)That seems to ooze hatred for Clinton and all of the left:
It's not surprising. Hillary Clinton, like her husband, always has been about obfuscation, about hiding true agendas, about sowing confusion in the minds of prospective voters about her real intentions, because she knows the American people would never follow her or elect her if they understood who she is and where she wants to take America.
from the same article YOU encouraged people to read:
In fact, who were the leaders of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century with whom Hillary so closely identifies? Among the most notable leaders were W.E.B. Du Bois, a Communist Party member, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an advocate of racial eugenics, an idea that inspired Adolf Hitler to kill six million Jews. I don't exaggerate. These are people and ideas that get Hillary's adrenaline pumping.
So, in order to defend Hillary, you quote an article that says the same ideas that led to the Holocaust "get Hillary's adrenaline pumping."
And this is what you offer for Hillary's defense, enocuraging people to click on this? My friend, you either made a tactical error, or perhaps your ideas might be closer to the article you quoted than you realize. Then again, the only thing you offer in terms of why we should support Hillary is that she will have the most money; we know she can negate that, as she blew her war chest in 2008.
Now, let me be clear, the article you quoted, which is actually very hateful towards Hillary, is full of crap. Anyone that would compare Hillary to Nazis is full of crap, and I, at my worst, would never support the views in that article, that you, a self-proclaiomed Hillary SUPPORTER, linked to. At least when I argue with honorable opponents like Beacool on the subject of HRC, she is not silly enough to offers as support an article that compared Hillary's ideas to the NAZIS! Indeed, if she is reading this, I bet she is rolling her eyes at this. Even right wing trolls know better than to quote right wing wing articles!
And to get back to the point, prove me wrong, will Hillary defend social prgrams, will she make the rich pay more taxes? will she keep us out of war, will she actually do things we need to do?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I didn't post anything BUT the quote from Hillary herself.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Really?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)never been to that site. Didn't know anything about it...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)a hint, people here on DU read the article, so if you want to convince people, you might, at the very least, want to avoid looking careless.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I had no idea whatsoever about that site....and diddn't give a shit frankly. I wanted the quote where she claimed she was Progressive....and that for all intents and purposes...politically she was the first one to use that moniker.
You can read some other bullshit into it if you want to...
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Claiming to be a progressive isn't the defining characteristic of a progressive. So what, specifically, has Ms. Clinton done that adds legitimacy to her claim of being a progressive?
Cue the crickets.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I gave an exact quote...where is yours?
yeah cue crickets indeed!
pscot
(21,024 posts)Is that a "progressive" who's tight with the bankers?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)my late Grandmother told me that "ALL boats rise under Democrats....ONLY the rich under Republicans"....that is a direct quote from a staunch FDR Democrat who's husband worked creating National Parks with the CCC's.
pscot
(21,024 posts)It's the 42% of GDP generated by finance while millions are out of work. It's the $400,000 Goldman Sachs paid Hillary for 2 brief talks last month, and what they expect to get for it. It's poor kids going to school hungry while their betters snack on endangered marine critters. It's the vile and demented Koch family being feted for their support of culture while looting the environment. The rich are ok, as long as they know how to behave, but the current crop think they've kicked themselves free of the Earth. We can't afford them. Their excesses are killing the planet.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And then there's the 'Third Way' who proudly proclaim to be a mixture of right and left. They support most Conservative policies, and a few progressive issues they are mostly not going to fight over, but give them their 'liberal' creds, or so they think.
Atman
(31,464 posts)She said she considers herself a "modern progressive." After saying:
"...in the last 30, 40 years, {liberal} has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century."
The way I read it, she wants to "modernize" the term "Progressive," the way "Liberal" was modernized in the last 30, 40 years.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)She used WHAT word before I did? I wasn't trying to use any word at all, I was pointing how here choice of words made it sound like was weaseling out of being an actual "progressive" instead of a "modern progressive," after she had described he modern liberal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because that was before it became "trendy"
Atman
(31,464 posts)Like...huh?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...thus it's a hit piece on Hillary and the left.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that support and promote HRC, make it clear what she stands for, instead of simply saying that she is the best candidate.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm not sure as to why you think I have some unique insight into the minds of the supporters of certain candidates.
I don't. I'm not some all-knowing mind reader that can delve into the minds of people over the interwebzz. 
Neither Hillary or Elizabeth have declared their intention to run for Prez in 2016.
Some people just need to relax.
It's wee bit early....like several years early. 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and give HRC a bigger head start. Not on you life.
If you want Christie for president, nominate Clinton.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Clinton is not even a candidate yet. Warren just got elected and hasn't even served a year in the Senate. Also, Warren has said that she has no intention of running for President.
DU is so funny sometimes. People are fighting primary battles that only exist in their minds.
I'm not going to engage in non-existent battles. It's like the movie Fight Club where Edward Norton thinks he's fighting Tyler Durden, but he's only punching himself. If you want to do that, you go right ahead.
I'll pick a candidate in 2015 when I have looked at the field which is currently non-existent.
If you want punch yourself in the face , I won't stop ya.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Not sure how you missed the phenomenon.
cali
(114,904 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Iow, you're saying we should support her because she's inevitably. 
Let me guess what the response will be. If we don't support Hillary in the primaries, we'll be voting for Cruz or Christie in the generals. 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)It goes into far more ...
As for the primaries, you should support the candidate you prefer. From what I can tell DU the name of that candidate will be ... umm ... well ... who?
For some reason, part of DU thinks the real fight is not with the GOP, but with other less pure Democrats.
And again, if some one posts a pro-Hillary OP on DU, it gets trashed. Cali knows it, so do you.
Personally, I'd like to see DU's perpetually disgruntled get busy finding and promoting better candidates rather than endlessly whining about today's latest intramural manufactured outrage.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If she is a supporter of the status quo more of the same like the TPP and Chained CPI she is worse than less pure.
Sorry, if a candidate doesn't speak out in favor of reining in corporate governance they will only earn my animosity. Same with those that won't say, "The military industrial complex has reached a ridiculous and unjustifiable size and must be reined in."
Think my demands are crazy far leftist? My ideas are mainstream.
Pretending right is left won't work this time. Fool me once.....
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Indeed, those ideas ARE mainstream outside the DC bubble. Thanks for making this point (over and over and as often as necessary).
-Laelth
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The last position Hillary had on Social Security is that she OPPOSED Raising-the-Cap,
because that would place a tax burden on what She considers the Middle Class...
the TOP 6%.
In this short video, Hillary tells us EXACTLY who she is working for.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I promise I never would have come up with the name Obama. Hillary was my 2nd to last choice in '08. I went through a couple first choices, but Bill Richardson stuck.
I can name a number of people I'd love to see run and who I'd vote for over Hillary in a heartbeat. Warren, Sanderson, Angus. I can't guarantee ony of them will run.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I was reading Altercation at the time, and after Obama's address at the 2004 convention, Eric Alterman linked to his speech and said "tell me this is not the future of the Democratic Party".
I have not heard of anybody who stood out like that from the 2012 convention.
In 2008, though, Richardson was my 2nd LEAST favorite pick. He actually opposed raising the social security cap before Hillary did. Looked to me like he was all about defending those poor people who make more than $100,000 a year.
When Hillary decides to run this time, probably nobody significant will stand against her. They are politicians, not Don Quixote.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)for the anti-Hillary and why-Hillary posts. Because somebody needs to stand to her left if only to stop her from swinging even further to the right.
I don't know if Richardson opposed raising the SS cap before Hillary, but I see you are correct. However, their language is pretty much identical.
"No, you don’t need to do that. That’s a 15% tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms. You don’t need to do that. This is what you do. One, you take privatization off the table. You don’t want Social Security in the stock market. Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the Congress and the president constantly do.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007 "
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)which sorta gave her cover to agree.
Otherwise, if Richardson and ALL the others had been for raising the cap, I don't know that Hillary would have had the guts to oppose it. Her whole debate performance, from what I saw, was to try to steal thunder and say "I agree with my opponents" or "I agree with what's been said".
My favorite point in the debates was when Obama, almost quoting from my DU journal, put the smackdown on that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)no longer have a Democracy. It says the Corporate State is complete.
Because the ONLY reason no other person out of hundreds of millions would consider running against one, single candidate, is Corporate Money. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. So now that we the people have had this confirmed it is up to us to begin the process of restoring Democratic elections which means that money does not determine the outcome.
THIS should be one of the biggest issues in campaigns from now. It is a SCANDAL that everyone but a few chosen by Corporations even have a chance at winning an election.
So, the way this should be dealt with is to publish the funding of each Candidate with the question 'who do you think this candidate will represent'?
We The People must start our own PR campaign. We can't defeat them with money, but we can work to expose the money and who is being backed by it. And who is not.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)We need to make accepting corporate contributions poison in the eyes of the electorate. We need to follow the money as closely as possible, making every effort to link contributors to policies. We need to confront our candidates with this, asking pressing questions about their policy decisions relevant to the contributions they receive. And we need to continue to follow this, examining how closely their contributions match their votes and the legislation they sponsor. I have long wished there was a website that would do this, crowd-sourced through an internet forum. We could demand candidate and office-holder participation, posing questions to them and posting their responses. Refusal to participate should be a huge negative, and should be heavily publicized as such.
I know of some websites that attempt to track donations, and do a pretty good job at it. I know of none that wrap up the whole package in a citizen vetting process that presents it in an easy to understand way. The correlation (or lack thereof) of money to policy, and compared against the politician's rhetoric, is the key, and making it very easy to understand.
C.R.E.W. does excellent work, maybe someone like that group could take such an effort on. It could become the go-to resource to examine candidates, and negate the corporate media's influence. It should be entirely non-partisan, linking money to candidates and candidates to policy.
edit to add:
Another aspect of this could be to crowd-source donations to participating clean candidates, to give them a fighting chance against corporation money and to give them the freedom to break with corporate policy. If the effort is successful enough, the negative stigma of corporate whoring and the positive reinforcement of public money for verified clean candidates could be a way to negate the effects of decisions like Citizens United.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Exactly! Excellent post. And this
Yes, no more money to Corporate Candidates or pacs that are controlled by politics.
This is the only way to stop the flow of money into our elections.
Seeing the disgusting, defeatist attitude that we are helpless and must accept the Corporate Candidate foisted on us just highlights how bad the problem and has become and how imperative it is to start fighting back.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I am quite serious about this, it's been an idea lurking for a long time. I'm sure many others have the same or similar ideas. It is a path to deal with the circumstances we are up against.
If we can do a good job of connecting corporate contributions to legislation that negatively impacts people, we can get somewhere. I saw one website once (forget which) that attempted to do that, but it was a lot of data and very difficult to figure out what was what. It needs a very simple front-end, like a voter's guide, with the ability to click all the way down to specific contributions, allowing the voter to examine a candidate (or a ballot initiative) along the issues the voter most cares about. And it needs a forum behind it, for targeted discussion of these specific candidate/issue/donor threads. The candidate's own words should be a part of this, with the candidate strongly encouraged to post and explain their reasons for their positions and their reasons for accepting particular donations.
We should be able to sufficiently stigmatize the acceptance of corporate donations to offset the advertising advantages these candidates gain from accepting these donations. Money can buy advertising, but it can't actually buy votes, though obviously at this point it is pretty successful in doing so.
I realize it's much more difficult than I lay out here, donations are often obscured or even entirely secret. We can work to change that, but in the meantime, there is a lot of information we could do something with.
It needs to be laid out in a very direct and simple way, at least on the surface. Most people don't have enough time to dig deeply into funding issues, they need a streamlined front-end that is logical and clear, with the ability to dig as deep as they want through by clicking through underlying links.
I had hoped DU would do something like this, but actually I believe such an effort needs to be non-partisan.
The front-end could present pictures of the candidates covered Nascar-style with the corporate logos of their donors, these logos could be hotlinked to the donations and their related issues. I dunno, it could take many forms, just throwing stuff out there hoping to spark up some interest.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Whether it comes from the GOP or DLC Democrats doesn't really matter-- particularly when discussing primaries.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)is the Easy part--there are many, many out there. Convincing them to Run is quite another thing-for them to Willingly enter in the "Public Hell" modern campaigns put you though coupled with the unimaginable Money Quest to Pay for a campaign--is a deal breaker for nearly All of the "good ones".
It's down to uber wealthy greedy wall street types as our best choice and that is no choice at all. In this crowd it doesn't matter if you've labeled yourself a Dem or GOP...
Getting qualified people elected is going to be a struggle until We can get Congress to Overturn Citizens United for starters--and before we can do that-we need a majority control--and to accomplish that-we need to undo Gerrymandering-and before we can do That we have to wait until the next census in 2020......unless we could just change the election itself to a National Popular Voting System....
Can someone get elected without corp money? Hell yes--just look at the recent Seattle Election...but it won't work outside of smaller local races because WE can't get organized to push a person like that thru.....If we could get over that hump--ignore the status quo candidates and stick it out? Anything is possible...but until then....
imo
Laelth
(32,017 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The gerrymandering can easily be turned against them. They spread their own vote across as many districts as possible, using whatever they determine to be a safe margin so they can hopefully carry each district. If the tide turns enough (it doesn't take much, since they use slim margins to try to dominate as many districts as possible) they no longer have any safe districts, let alone a majority of them. They mostly gerrymander in states where they don't usually win, so its even easier to turn it against them. I don't think we have to wait 10 years to carry those states.
Re the rest of your post, check out this idea, I know I'm dreaming but it seems entirely possible with a serious and focused effort.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050756#post519
fredamae
(4,458 posts)One of the major key elements is to Educate, Educate, Educate...
I kind of equate it to "Fracking" our elections/democracy
They recklessly poison the well from which we drink (rumors, lies, scary ads) and the fields growing the food we eat (Voting Machine Manipulations/Voting Supression) as the toxic fumes rise in the air we breathe (Bad candidates who win by cheating)-for personal gains and profits. The consequences of us continuing to accept this "new electoral environ" is simply More of the Same-
We need to organize--even if we have to-take a page out of the TP's playbook to do it...They locked on to their mission, ignored the façade of public outrage all around them--never lost their focus and plowed through to their Win. En Masse'.
Unless and until We (majority)are ready to wake up to the Fact that Neither Party (The Guiding Leadership) Represents the people anymore? And are Willing to take a chance on doing something different (like ignoring corp money)-that these actions Will require we Remove that one nail in our left-foot that keeps us going around in circles-doing the same "circular dance" expecting different results?
We're stuck right here.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--is to put together a lot of subroutines that work right. Consider Seattle a starting subroutine.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Where they create a situation where no matter who you vote for the 1% wins.
2banon
(7,321 posts)and though it feels like it's reaching "critical mass", history tells us it doesn't matter.
The PTB's security apparatus will successfully quash any reactions/uprisings by any means necessary.
Good Cop/Bad Cop plays well in the charade they love to pretend is a "democracy".
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)
I'll save you the trouble and post the topic each paragraph. I still haven't found anything other than "because she's inevitable."
Clinton’s polling
early polling.
close to Clinton was Al Gore for 2000. (polls)
Clinton’s numbers (polls)
Clinton’s edge (polls in early primary states).
A peak under the hood (polls)
Almost all other factors (organization)
No Obama on the horizon (and Clinton's polls beat Obama's)
only Liz Warren could give her a run for her money (but she supports Hillary)
invisible primary advantage (polls)
summary: there are many reasons to believe in Hillary (see above list for all of them)
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)there might be something a bit backwards about the Purity Issues.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)operating within the Constitution, opposing the Patriot Act, trying bring Wall Street under control, purity issues.
Eight more years of conservative rule and the middle class will be toast. But I am guessing that's ok with you. You rationalize it away calling it being pragmatic. Clinton or Christie, whatever? Right?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)The third one is totally unnecessary and undeserved snark.
The forth one...rationalization? Logic. Facts. Haven't read too many of my posts, I take it. A billion dollars...look it up. 50-60 million people need to vote for President...easy to find that stat as well. Three, yes three, years without a day job while spending millions of dollars on The Campaign. All without evil corporate funds.
Forget the other huge issues needed for a real, live, national candidate. They pale in comparison. And we wonder why Elizabeth Warren, an intellectual economist hasn't figured that out? Getting her family ready to be invaded and vetted and photographed for the internet, while quitting her amazing work at work she is uniquely suited for and clearly loves ... racing out to be ridiculed by creepy political Tea Party hacks.... so running probably isn't even on her list. ( And if you're one of those that has let this fantasy behind, I apologize for the repeat.) Yet it would surely be to the loud cheers of the Fat Cat 1%ers? Can hear them now in their smoky backrooms...Run, Elizabeth, run. Please, in 2013. These are logical (mostly) facts, as I see it.
I hate it, kind of like I hate paying ridiculous house payments and utilities and food and communication, and newspapers and transportation and gas and .... I hate that probably 95% of my budgetary and discretionary income and even my savings goes to a corporation..some where. But I reliably err on the side of pragmatism and sign and send them the checks, anyway. I don't have to like it. Sometimes I don't even get to choose which corporation I send it to. Examples aside ???? How do we get there with any candidate? Where are the others who have it figured out? I actually think it's more fantasy than purity. And I don't just want a Progressive. I want a Left Liberal...JFK, Bobby type, RIP.
The last response is Clinton or Christie or Jeb or unnamed. If it didn't matter, I'd be with the stay at home group until Mr/Ms Perfection happen along and I wouldn't be posting on DU. Whatever. At this point, and Christie is a maybe and IMO highly doubtful, the other two can definitely raise the funds and put together the organization needed to make it to the Final Two.
Also, we know that the Republicans are in no way grousing about corporate donors. The IOUs are already being printed. In fact, no national candidate is...for kind of a practical reality AKA pragmatism. Why do you think candidates are not growing on trees like they used to...particularly in the Democratic Party? Where are they? And that's the rhetorical question du jour.
Now, about paragraphs 2 and 3 above ... comments?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to what your preaching. If you're trying to convince me that reality dictates that irregardless of what the left does we are going to get the royal screw job, dont waste your finger muscles. I fully understand the reality of the current state of politics in the USofA. I am not sure I understood it in 2008. Thinking back, I am trying to remember if I really thought we had a chance with Obama. But I am not going to give up without a fight. And I am sick of the lesser of evils trick that has eroded us to where we are. We still get to vote, but for Thing 1 vs. Thing 2. We have to draw a line somewhere.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)She is what we have right now. She is all we have right now and even that we don't know for sure. Who else? Who knows?
Everyone on here is not going to give up without a fight...and for that I applaud us all...or we wouldn't be here. But we can't fight phantoms and fairies, no matter how sick of the choice of the lesser of evils, or to vote while holding our nose, stuff. When 110 million people, give or take, have 2 choices, the chances of a whole lot of people having to go with the former or the latter, is pretty good. The others, I call them stay at home pouters, don't deserve yours or my time or the fight or the rights of a democracy, IMO.
My gut along with my logic, inconveniently inform me that the anti-corporate plank of the Progressives is not sustainable...literally. The angst about Hillary, I believe, is mostly about that and that she got that a long time ago...Bill got it, Obama got it, Bush got it. The real deals get it. One billion dollars. Right now, she's the only one we've got who could do that...and that's why she's not fiscally Pure/Progressive. And that's why, for this moment in time, she's got my support. That could change. I'm not a die hard. Just haven't heard anything but the Republican mantra. No. No. Bad idea. No Other Ideas. Just. No.
But I often agree with and enjoy your posts.
On a personal note, since you brought it up ...the preacher was my Dad. He was a child during WWI and an Army Chaplain in Japan in WWII. My mother was a public school music teacher. I'm a retired elementary teacher. Elizabeth Warren is also a teacher/professor that I adore and am proud to also share her first name.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But I still dont forgive you for pushing reality at me. My fear is that the left will reject HRC and Christie will get the presidency. 2000 all over again.
In 2008 I fought hard for Obama because I believed (or at least I had myself fooled into believing) that Obama was progressive. In 2012 I again fought hard for Obama because.......... I dont know why really. I guess I was manipulated into recognizing that there was really no other choice.
As far as ever voting for HRC, I am sorry I dont think I can. In the run-up to the Iraq war I was desperately trying to find Democrats that would represent the interests of the 99% and tell George Bush the Dim-Son to pound sand. But one after another Democrat bowed before the Idiot-King and did his bidding. We were betrayed. Our two party system exposed itself as the sham it is. We really have a corporatist party and a few renegades (both liberal and whacko).
If Christie Creams gets the presidency, Occupy here I come.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)At least I agreed with him mostly, but we of course, knew he would lose. And I'd have to flip a coin on the Presidential Terror Twins ... which was the worst, Nixon/Bush or their Nifty Military Playgrounds, to which the Veterans, normal people and the grieving refer to as Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. But even JFK was not totally clear of Vietnam either, he'd meddled as well.
Still, JFK/RFK's deaths, Vietnam and Nixon are deep political wounds for many of we now-senior Boomers. Still, I'm in with what we got, and hope for much better, but not holding my breath. I dropped out of politics for decades.
Our politics now are all absolutely corporatist. But I argue to myself mostly, so is every other part of our lives. I dropped out once. I could write an essay on why I think a lot of this economic situation was set in motion by Nixon in 1971...more than 40 years ago...and further back to the Industrial Revolution before that. It describes our American Empire. Some of think it has reached its peak. Who can say.
And Occupy? I so hoped for that to be a success...it so reminded me of the 60s.
So, to quote Edward R. Murrow...a champion when journalism was real, had integrity, and politicians feared their power and truth-telling, way back in the days of B&W TV, "Good night and good luck."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)That seems to be the argument in that thread, which kind of supports the notion in this OP.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Hillary isn't the front runner simply because she is the front runner.
Her time in the Senate, and as SoS matter.
The point of course is that Cali's OP is nonsense. There are folks who promote Hillary here on DU, and when they do, their threads get trashed.
To pretend that isn't the case is pretty disingenuous.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We get it, already--this poster doesn't like HRC. And foot-stomping OP after OP will be started, until everyone knows it!!!!!
I would suggest that the poster just not vote for her if he or she feels that way, instead of badgering people who don't agree with her.
It's like Fight Club up in here some days.
Doesn't matter if you point to HRC's experience, her record, her ability to achieve consensus, her powerhouse debating and fundraising skills, her connections, the fact that she knows--PERSONALLY-- every frigging world leader by first name and has pressed the flesh and broken bread with them, and probably has the biggest players on her cellphone speed dial...that's not enough. Whatever you say, it's never enough. She's baaaaaaad....because a keyboarder sez so!
And we should nominate someone who is completely unproven, untested, with no international or other experience, because...because...PROGRESSIVE!!! PROGRESSIVE!!! Even when people don't know the stances of these mystery candidates on most of the issues, because they have no record of working those issues. I think it would shock a lot of people to learn that Elizabeth Warren (who isn't running) opposes legalization of marijuana, for example. But that's the truth.
Nominating someone who doesn't appeal to the vast majority of Democratic voters--and I mean the people who actually vote our ticket, not the ones who talk a good fight and then go waste their franchise on Ralph Nader or Jill Stein--will ensure eight long years of Chris "Blowhard" Christie. Fortunately, we as a party aren't stupid anymore--gone are the days of "Impossible Dreams" and tilting at windmills. And good thing, too.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)are because he came across as a progressive candidate. He always did well in the debates because he didn't have the experience to know just how limited the power of the executive branch can be.
There are too many conservatives in this country to forward an extremely liberal/progressive agenda successfully. That's the lesson we should have learned from 8 years of President Obama. I knew when he was running that he wasn't going to be able to pull off a lot of his promises.
It's too early to talk about 2016, when we have a larger battle to fight between now and then, but I think if she does run - we will get more realistic campaign promises from her than we will get from some wet behind the ears candidate. She knows the limitations of the office, but no matter who the democratic president is in 2016 - he/she ain't gonna accomplish diddly squat if we don't control congress.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That said, HRC's candidacy has been a topic of discussion at a number of levels. A million people have joined the Ready For Hillary PAC, the fundraising has already begun; Jenifer Granholm and others out in front mobilizing people, so it's all in the mix.
We can do both, I think.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)It gave one and only one reason to support her: she polls really well. That is it. She is leading in the invisible primary. She is leading in early states. Lots of people support her. Your article's sole criteria is "vote for Clinton because everybody is going to vote for him**."
**I use "him" because that is how she is referred to at one point in the article. Typo, but it makes one wonder....
Beacool
(30,249 posts)
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)And my conclusion is that it says Hillary is the front runner because she's the front runner. It also says that a DLC type challenger won't be a challenge to her, but, someone like Liz Warren could have a chance (which is discounted because of that letter from all the female Senators encouraging a run).
Because their promotion is typical of the article you refer to essentially that Hillary is inevitable and you better get used to the notion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)her stands are on issues. Your link simply stated that she is the front runner and is " is the most formidable presidential frontrunner in modern era" So we should support her because she is formidable.
How does she stand on the TPP? The Patriot Act? NSA spying? Controls for Wall Street? The minimum wage? The only posts I've seen that support her simply say she is great and therefore we should support her.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The OP says she's inevitable because of the elements in the article.
Doesn't anyone on DU read the articles that people link to?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Where does she stand on the TPP? Patriot Act? etc.? The article only says she is "formidable". Of course she is formidable she has big money behind her.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But my anti's are always joined by people who want to argue...
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)The burden is on progressives to ignore everything we believe in and shut up. Our only other option is Chris Christie, and we know he'll be worse, so the choice is already made. Right?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)After all, the republicans supported him out of loyalty, not out of enthusiasm.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If the conservatives had banded behind one of the crazy conservatives (Cain, Bachman, Newt, Perry) instead of scattering their votes, the crazy would have been nominated. Romney was really nominated for being the least crazy, not out of any loyalty.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)He got as much support as he did in the general out of party loyalty.
Hillary will be nominated because she is inevitable. She will get as much support as she does in the general out of party loyalty.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I am convinced they nominated him to lose because he wouldn't go away.
Granted, they got rid of him but they also tossed their Country Western base under the bus along the way. If there is one thing they HATE it's to see a city slicker standing on a stage made of hay bales. Then to find out that he wasn't just a Mormon but a church elder and that whole "White Horse" thing...
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)(what's left of it) 2014... 2015... 2016...
2016! That's when we'll have primaries and challengers will have arisen. Challengers who no one can even guess at now. Challengers who will arise out of the darkness of the Governors offices and the Senate.
For now, though, Hillary's people are more of a cult and the rest of us are bored with it all.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I see some pretty cultish behavior from the "hate almost every Democrat" contingency around here...
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm hardly the only one.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)she's working hard to quash anyone else running- but inevitably dems will run to her left.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and if she doesn't run he would be a great choice too. I would most certainly vote for Warren...but I just don't think she will run against Hillary.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)In fact she hasn't even said she is going to run. Could you post an example or two of whom she is 'quashing' and how? Thanks!
TommyCelt
(838 posts)She's not "running" for anything yet.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)to whom most Democrats don't toe the "progressive" line enough, but I'm not sure many of them aren't just stirring the pot and laughing about it.
I am, btw, not one of those and understand the problems of a Democrat trying to stay blue in a reddish district. Or that there can be differences in opinion in a big enough tent.
But, for at this point someone to demand the coronation of Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, it is a bit cultish.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)80 to 90 percent approval among Democrats...and 67% over all....
She is well liked and respected it seems everywhere BUT the Rightosphere and for some reason Democratic Underground
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I admired her as First Lady and as SoS, think she would do fine job as Presient should it happen, and am not in any way a Hillary Hater.
I'm just a little exhausted from my own failed run at local office and am gearing up for a nasty Congressional fight. Hillary, or anyone else thinking of being President can wait.
But, hey, then what else would we talk about?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)having just gone through a grueling campaign....you should get that. She has survived everything they have thrown at her. That lady is as determined as Diane Nyad...
Plus more than any other ...Republicans HATE her!
They will broil from the inside out to see HER as their President. I cannot WAIT for the head explosions!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Notwithstanding the rosy yet undocumented approval numbers cited by ardent supporters, apparently pulled out of you-know-where, Ms. Clinton's numbers are headed down.
Hillary Clinton, in addition to President Barack Obama, is facing declining approval numbers, a poll shows.
Clinton has lost a majority of public approval dropping to 46 percent approval from 56 percent in April, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released Wednesday. Thirty-three percent have a negative view of the former secretary of state.
The poll also highlights that Clinton is losing support among younger voters, independents and even within her own party. She dropped 15 percentage points since April among 18- to 34-year-olds who said they had a positive view of Clinton to 38 percent. Additionally, her approval rating among independents fell from 46 percent to 35 percent. Clinton’s approval among Democrats also fell by 12 points, from 88 percent in April to 76 percent in the most recent poll.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/poll-hillary-clinton-approval-sinks-99162.html#ixzz2l0npcXyx
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)67% OVERALL
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Try to quote accurate, current numbers/stats, including links, would you PLEASE?
I just caught Rocky Horror Picture Show on cable over Halloween, and your inflated numbers brought to mind this song: Let's Do the Time Warp Again. The world has changed and the web is enlightening people about corporate greed. A lifelong Republican neighbor, with whom I generally avoid any political conversation, spontaneously brought up how frightened she is for her adult kids and young adult grandkids by corporate greed and politicians selling out to corporate interests.
It's just a jump to the left,
and then a step to the right.
Put your hands on your hips;
and bend your knees in tight ...
We need a candidate who appeals to independents and young voters, and Clinton's approval ratings with those 2 groups dropped to 35% and 38% respectively. She couldn't take the primary in 2008 and she's become more identified with corporatist/militarist interests since then. You know it. I know it. Major potential voting blocks know it. The only thing keeping her in the game are the bloated contributions made possible by Citizens United.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Puleeeze GMAFB
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you want to post out-of-date approval records, then include a link to identify how old they are, and that they are not current.
In fact, we would all welcome accurately dated approval statistics - which document that HC is sinking in the polls.
In that sense, you could say the HC is history.
And what a laugh, to describe Rocky Horror as a "historical musical"!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah its historical...its from 1975! It predates Ronnie Raygun for goodness sakes...
Oh and Hillary sinking? In his home state....where he won by a huge margin...
If today was a race between Christie and Clinton, exit polls show Christie would not carry his home state. The former secretary of state, senator, and first lady beats Christie, 48 percent to 44 percent.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/05/21324042-exit-polls-clinton-beats-christie-in-nj-in-potential-2016-matchup
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Try to calm down, now. You've confused me with other posters ridiculing your colorful charts elsewhere in this thread. You have to keep up! I responded to your post number 42.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If today was a race between Christie and Clinton, exit polls show Christie would not carry his home state. The former secretary of state, senator, and first lady beats Christie, 48 percent to 44 percent.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/05/21324042-exit-polls-clinton-beats-christie-in-nj-in-potential-2016-matchup
furthermore...
That “slight” six point lead that Hillary Clinton holds over Chris Christie, in a state where Christie’s approval rating hits the floor at 61%, is also greater than the lead she’s had over Christie in any of Democratic-leaning (but dead-on accurate) Public Policy Polling’s 2016 general election polls. You can call this result “early,” or a poor indicator, but in the home state where he’s just won a landslide reelection, you can’t call a six point spread “close.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-john-king-reports-hillary-clintons-slight-6-point-edge-over-christie-in-nj-exit-polls/
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You posted false, as in materially out-of-date, no longer accurate date in post 42. I corrected it, and then we were off to the races. What is the benefit to you of all these irrelevant posts? Why do I even bother to ask? You never reply to direct queries, but point in another direction. I'm through with responding to you. I regret having fed you to this point.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)EVERYONE'S poll numbers sank recently....the Healthcare website caused it.
BUT Chris Christie's election was just a couple weeks ago....he won by a landslide but even so in his home state he loses to Hillary Clinton!
Name another Democrat that could have achieved THAT?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)When the right wingers with the help of the media unload all the stored up "scandals" of her and her husband...and we all know they will.
Say hello to president Cruz Christie...or Christie Cruze...or anyone else they happen to run.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I thought I'd heard most of the scandals, but there was a lot of new stuff, and who knows what he's been up to since then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-508015/Hillarys-humiliation-How-swept-Bill-Clintons-affairs-carpet.html
It's all waiting to be dredged back up and will damage the chances of Democratic candidates further down the ticket.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Ho hum...another Hail Mary October Surprise...not buying it."
You don't understand the media. After they've beaten something to death, it's filed under "Asked and Answered." And any attempt to gain advantage by dredging up old shit looks like flopsweat desperation.
Or are you forgetting how poorly the reception to "Birther, Redux" was during Obama's 2nd run? That shit got MOCKED (even Obama had some fun with it) --and that's what it deserved.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But this is not like the birth-er, which is clearly a lie and most people know it...this is real thing that they know are true, and remember...reminding them this this is yet another dynasty in the making and not the change most people want...it is more of the same, and you can bet your sweet bippie the GOP will play that up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Anyone who would not vote for her because of rehashed, right wing Brietbart bullshit is not going to vote for her in the first place. Some retread "faux scandal" isn't going to sway those who support her, and anyone who tries to fling shit at her will be regarded as a bully, a smear artist, and a dirty trickster trying to interfere with the election of the first woman President--and the best qualified person for the job--in our nation's history.
That scandal dog don't hunt, son.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)for them it is a reminder of how the same people are running things as before...something you discount as a problem...so then faced with that they stay home and let the Tea Party and the GOP stand solidly behind no matter who the GOP runs.
The problem is that you think the whole world thinks like you and will reject the constant drone of propaganda they will release...that is not the case.
Besides, they will control the narrative not you, and the narrative will be, same old same o...expect no change.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Where's the "Ready for (Fill In Your Favorite)" website? Where are the millions in five, ten and twenty five dollar donations?
I don't think "the whole world" thinks like me, but I already know that a chit-load of people are thinking like me, three years out from the next Presidential election, no less, because they've gotten off their asses and sent that five, ten or twenty five bucks to that PAC. They're organizing, and that's what smart people do. Emily's List has stepped up for HRC. So has Media Matters, as well as others. http://www.wsls.com/story/24001918/outside-political-groups-coalescing-around-clinton
That's not "propaganda." That's SUPPORT.
By contrast, GOP donors aren't opening their wallets. They're annoyed. That's good news for HRC, et. al.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/gop-donors-revolt-against-republican-led-government-shutdown.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/republican-groups-2014_n_4295271.html
Political campaigns don't run on sweet, sweet love and pale moonlight. They run on money, hard work and organization from coast to coast. Earlier is always better. That's just how it works.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If you think that is the case then this conversation is on a downward spiral and I don't feel like going down there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)grass roots effort to dethrone the declared heir apparent.
The Big Money corporations have bought all of the Republicans in Wash DC and some of the DEmocrats. So simply voting for a Democrat doesnt guarantee that you wont be supporting corporatism.
The left will have an uphill battle to defeat the Big Money in the next election.
Eight more years of centrist (conservative) rule may cripple the middle class beyond repair.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)that you also have the tougher job of educating the voters that voting for a leftwing candidate is in their interest. When was the last time we put one in the White House? When was the last time one made it through the primaries and was on the ticket?
You may hate voting for the lesser evil, but there's that "speaking for yourself" thing again...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)will see that the conservatives will bleed them dry. Even those that call themselves Democrats. They are Lieberman Democrats.
What's kinda funny is that conservative-Democrats chide the left about having to vote for the lesser of evils, but then when the left refuses, the Con-Dems have a fit, trying to blame the outcome on the left instead of the poor choice.
If you dont want Christie elected, then put up a better candidate than Christie light.
I am curious, would you support Christie if he switched parties?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)insist on adding nuance to political positions, which is not a bad thing in itself, but leads to idiotic battles on our side like the word "rare" in the abortion debates. Then we spend more time fighting with ourselves over one word than we do with the other side.
The right has a few issues that are cut and dried-- taxes, "wasting" money on poor people, guns... and they don't waste time arguing with each other over the nuances or other issues. Just get the message out and forget about anyone who doesn't get on the bus. So far, it's worked pretty well for them. They have their purity tests, but their tests aren't about right or wrong, they're about who puts more money into your pocket.
We say we have to spend money to feed the poor. They say fuck the poor, it's your money, keep it. Easy choices there.
We won't get our "progressive" candidates in there until we convince the American people that they are being selfish and short-sighted in these debates.
Now, would I support Christie if he switched parties? Aside from the supreme improbability of that happening, if he were running against Rand Paul or the Moose Huntress I'd have to think about it. Anyone else, probably not unless they found an even bigger asshole.
But, that's a more extreme "lesser evil" than we'll be seeing. (I hope.)
Beacool
(30,249 posts)It is the support for one of the most qualified persons to run for president in recent history. The condescending and dismissive tone of many here is quite off-putting.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)right now she has no clear competition, so why fight until there is a fight to be had?
Far more important is the election next year. And 2016 is a distraction.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)We are only reacting to all the bullshit that is thrown in our direction on a daily basis.
The whole thing is getting tiresome. DU needs to decide whether it's going to be a welcoming tent for all Democrats or are they going to become like Free Republic where only the very conservative can join. If that's the case, then Skinner should inform the membership at large. Then some of us will have to decide whether to stay or to pack our bags and move to friendlier sites, where ALL Democrats are welcome.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)that's probably worse, even though no doubt they'll say they are reacting to Clinton supporters. That's been DU for as long as I've been around, and it will only get worse.
FWIW, I'm arguing against any talk of 2016, not talk about a particular potential candidate.
And, as far as leaving goes, I've left before and come back because I've never thought of this place as having any serious effect on actual politics in real time but there are other neat things talked about.
(I do wish we still had meetups, though.)
eridani
(51,907 posts)--media consolidation? What's not to like?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)in her speeches, why would anyone want to nominate her. There are only so many jobs she can promise these supporters, some of whom are media moguls who keep bringing her name up.
I sometimes think the people who jump in and mention her in threads praising Warren, Biden, or other candidates, are paid to do so...
I stay out of pro-Hillary threads myself. There seem to be plenty of the "anti-" where I can comment.
Oh, maybe she does say something I might like in her speeches. Trouble is, I can't listen to her. Her cadence and slow delivery as though speaking to children gets on my nerves, and that laugh..4 years of that make me feel lucky to be 75-1/2 and won't have to live thru them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)but why me? It's not done as well as an ACA website page and is hard on the eyes, and is fairly tasteless.
It does not in any way respond to my post. Reading comprehension, Son.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It's not the facts it presents....its just not pretty enough for you!
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and did not respond to what I said. If I ask you for the job record in the Clinton years, please give it to me . I am not in the mood today.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)22.7 million according to my charts that you are tooo sensitive to read yourself.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)This is an ideas exchange for me. Got any?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)did I?
22.7 million.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Your combative and content free addition to this thread does not bode well for her supporters ability to argue her merits.
*Pete Peterson
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
you're a riot, vanilla.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)cogent argument for progressives to support her.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Where are YOUR links?
cali
(114,904 posts)I've posted lots of links about Hillary's corporatism.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but they don't all have 80 to 90% approval among Democrats either...and 67% overall. Do you realize how hard it is to have numbers like THAT? Your support for them non-withstanding.
cali
(114,904 posts)than any other dem that it's ridiculous to make your claim.
Your idol can be defeated. Again, vanilla.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Like I said....I am in good company. 80 to 90% of Democrats agree with me not you...so I guess they are ALL "idolizing" her now too!
Has nothing whatsoever to do with the years of service she has already put in....and a FEMALE. I happen to also want to see a Female elected in my lifetime...but I am sure you will tell me why I support a female who can win is sooooooo wrong.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Among the uber-hip crowd, as they scramble desperately to be acclaimed the most righteous lefty of all time, it has been decreed that it's not possible to merely "support" a candidate with whom they disagree.
No, one must "idolize" or "worship" such a person, and is therefore so clearly blinded by idolatry or some other mystical quasi-religious bullshit, that their opinion is of no value whatsoever.
See how it works?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am going to start using that phrase "the uber-hip crowd"! Your post describes the situation superbly!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But no, keep up with popularity fallacy. Because 100,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BTW...only 67% overall support her including some Republicans...many of whom would be Elvis fans...just sayin.
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #105)
NuclearDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats are job creators...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, jobs have increased under Democrats, and recently too. But the quality of those jobs and their pay leaves a ton to be desired.
If a Democrat like Hillary who is so utterly beholden to the wrong side of class war that does everything in their increasing power to screw the people who work for them gets into office, there will be more of that. You can't support Wall Street and be on the side of the 99% at the same time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Will she bust the Democratic Jobs trend...
Democrats aren't in business to punish the rich. Under Democrats...ALL boats rise...including theirs.
I might remind you that this is a Democratic forum...with the intent of electing Democrats.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But when you support the side that campaigns relentlessly with its very deep pockets to undermine the living wage, worker protections, consumer safety, and collective bargaining, that's not a rising tide. That's a flood that'll drown the 99%.
By the way, Eisenhower was a Republican who taxed the shit out of the rich and created massive jobs programs with infrastructure spending and putting WWII vets to work.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Will Hillary buck the Democratic Jobs Creation trend...
Yes or no?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Or are you just incapable of looking beyond a spreadsheet of numbers to do some serious analysis?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because some here seem to be avoiding it...
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)That you are blaming one woman for the entire trajectory of US economic and foreign policy? That is Obama's policy, yet you've decided Secretary Clinton is the one responsible. I see a lot of that here on DU, but I expect greater awareness from you, NuclearDem.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Point taken though. It was over the line.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)The results will be exactly the same. The president doesn't control the international economy, and that treaty will be in place by then. Every other viable candidate will support such agreements. I don't like it, but it's a fact. People have made Hillary Clinton into the bete noire for everything they don't like about the Democratic Party. Nothing that people attribute to her is any different from any other potential Dem Candidate. Sanders is not going to be a nominee and Warren isn't running. America is a country controlled by corporate interests, and that will continue to be the case with or without Hillary Clinton in the White House.
All this nonsense about Hillary being so "right wing" or centrist: what about Obama? What has Obama done that isn't every bit as pro-corporate? These policies everyone is blaming Clinton for are actually his.
cali
(114,904 posts)and building the XL pipeline which she also supports!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)President Barack Obama is a Job Creator...
All boats rise under Democrats...my late Grandmother always taught me...
Do you think Hillary will bust that trend?
cali
(114,904 posts)I already answered your question. I stated that it's impossible to know, but we do know that she will help the bottom line of corporations. We don't know if that will result in jobs here for the 99%.
Now answer my questions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yes I do...
Do I think Hillary or any Democrat will do everything my way? No I don't.
cali
(114,904 posts)I answer you. Try doing the same with my questions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I probably agree with you on THOSE issues....but unlike you...they are not the ONLY ones I consider.
BTW...I vote and support Democrats.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
You know, the one you got booted from because you refused to have a productive discussion in favor of trolling and disruption?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so now I am borrowing a term "the uber-hip crowd on DU"
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)"Address my talking point!"
Talking point addressed.
"Why didn't you address my talking point?"
Talking point addressed again.
"YOU'RE NOT ADDRESSING MY TALKING POINT I SUPPORT DEMOCRATS"
That's not hypocrisy on anyone's part, just the recipe for an unproductive discussion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)yeah that "uber-hip" moniker fits very well.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rather than once again having to deal with blind uninformed party loyalty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ask anyone who isn't if they have been accused of "idolatry" lately.
I don't have idols...I support Democrats on a Democratic Forum by the way.
cali
(114,904 posts)and what the hell is "the uber-hip crowd"?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and who is likely his predecessor....on a DEMOCRATIC forum.
where is my hypocrisy vs those that think Anarchy doesn't mean chaos?
I thought of you all by the way while watching the movie Captain Phillips.....they talked about lack of govt and "anarchy" a number of times regarding Somalia!
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm anything but an anarchist.
ridiculous.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)plenty here do...OPENLY!
not a ridiculous point at all.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Nobody here, however, is naive enough to believe it's practical in a society overwhelmingly dominated by a capitalist mindset.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)dictionary of note says so!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Tell you what, do some research beyond MW and get back to me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Guess I struck a nerve...
Anarchy is Chaos...
cyberswede
(26,117 posts) VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It doesn't bother me if someone puts me on "ignore"...just means I won!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) Do some basic fucking research occasionally.VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Use a fucking dictionary!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Anarchism is a very complex collection of schools of thought unified only by the idea in a lack of an overarching governing body. There's anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-pacifism, Christian anarchism...
None of these are chaos or disarray. Anarchy in the colloquial sense does mean chaos, but it's about as accurate a statement as creationists misusing the term "theory."
Your posts on this topic frankly reek of the unwillingness or inability to do basic research so prevalent in the anti-science camps. If you oppose anarchism, fine, but understand at least what it is before you go off.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)an·ar·chism noun \ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\
: a belief that government and laws are not necessary
Full Definition of ANARCHISM
1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2
: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
See anarchism defined for English-language learners »
it opposes ALL forms of Govt...even the American kind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)an·ar·chism (nr-kzm)
n.
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
anar·chistic (-kstk) adj.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Only says that it replaces government with free association cooperation.
We're approaching the point where you got booted out the last time we discussed this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ALL forms of Govt...even the American kind....
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Including the one you posted. What that described was basically Occupy's model, and that was hardly chaos.
And it wasn't a threat, just a reminder.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Dictionaries...you know....those books everyone relies on to determine the meaning of a word.
Anarchism means you abhor ALL forms of govt. Period.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You've defined the colloquial definition of anarchy--chaos and disarray.
Then you went off to define anarchism--which, by the way, is a very broad topic to define by a couple of sentences--as the rejection of government in favor of free association and voluntary cooperation. Not chaos.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You seem to always overlook that part about considering ALL forms of govt unnecessary
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/Submit
noun
1.
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil More
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)This is getting really old.
Do you actually read what I write?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)words have meanings.
If I call this dog turd my pup left a rose does it smell any better?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Definitions come from cultural understanding. Anarchy has come to be culturally understood in societies with hierarchal power structures as lawless and chaotic.
Anarchists don't advocate chaos. Replacing the vertical hierarchy with a horizontal one is not chaos. In fact, it's how Occupy functions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you don't get to decide...
does this dog turd smell like a rose if I call it one?
for your edification once again:
an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit
noun
1.
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because I am not afraid of the truth....how about you?
and for the record...I got alerted on calling someone a Republican for short....when it WAS part of their name.
cali
(114,904 posts)and you still can't bring yourself to simply answer.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You cannot or will not even answer the question...Will Hillary buck the Democratic Job Creation trend...
You won't even answer a question as easy as that....I guess it might choke you to have to say it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)actually quite a bit worse, because it just looks so cowardly and deceitful.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)My point is that not all people that label themselves as Democratic actually follow Democratic principles. Saying you support Democrats is a cop out. They are not equal.
Instead of blindly supporting people because they are Democrats, I would rather you establish a set of principles and support those people that support your principles.
Supporters of HRC as Obama are very reluctant to talk about principles or specific issues.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some here would support the devil himself if he labeled himself a Democrat.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No I will not dignify foolishness...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)If you're an Indian developer working 80+ hours a week and living in constnt fear of losing that job and finding yourself on boat back to India, she's been just jolly. If, OTOH, you have spent the last decade watching your entire life's earnings stolen by people just like her, with no capability, or even hope of starting over again, she's not on your side at all.
I know you also like links very much, so here's a start...
http://www.google.com/webhp?nord=1#nord=1&q=hillary+clinton+tata
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)OMG....doesn't take much for you does it? By the way....I am in technology....by your "evidence" no one in the Democratic party would satisfy you...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You act like ruining the lives of tens of thousands of families (over 45,000 actually in upstate New York) is nothing, like her outright betrayal and sacrifice of her own constituents doesn't matter at all.
What the hell is wrong with you?
cali
(114,904 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or has this so-called coup only happened under President Obama?
As I said....She gets 67% over all favorability EVEN among Elvis fans
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Because all those jobs Republicans create are SOOO well paid!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats create more jobs....by far...
Do you think Hillary will bust that trend or not?
MADem
(135,425 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and for why progressives shouldn't support her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)by far and away, most of the sources I've posted about your adored Hillary, are from the left.
Are you actually claiming that there isn't significant opposition to Hillary from the left.
And facts are facts:
Fact: Hillary has claimed that raising the cap on SS would be a tax increase on the middle class
Fact: Hillary has supported fracking
http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/08/hillary-clinton-no-fracking-yes-renewables/
Fact: hillary supports the corporate giveaway that is the TPP
and on and on and on.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I could on and on too!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)check out this graph...
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022
cali
(114,904 posts)It's interesting that I consistently provide links to my claims and YOU never do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And if they are what you call "the left," well, I'm an astronaut.
But hey, you "Grrrr, grrrr!" away and keep posting links cribbed from the right--it ain't gonna do you any good.
Presidents don't rule by decree, you know, and they can't force a state to frack if the state doesn't want to do it. States vote against it if they don't want it. We don't have it my state. NY doesn't have it either. HRC doesn't have the authority to "order" fracking anywhere--even fracking on federal lands is the province of the legislature. I really wonder if you realize that it will be up to Congress to vote on any alterations to SS, because Queen Hillary won't be able to change that all by her evil-meanie onesies, either. Last but not least, the "TPP" is still a work in progress, and HRC left Obama's State Department some time ago.
Nice try, though. Grrr!
Sure, there's opposition to HRC from the far left, and they are carrying water for the GOP, even if some do it unwittingly. It won't do any good, though. She's going to win.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)She might win, and if she does, fine, but you have far more courage than I--either that or a really good crystal ball.
-Laelth
MADem
(135,425 posts)The people supporting her are prepped. They're using every tool in the toolbox--from sea-to-shining-sea organization, to early fundraising --big and small, and not mixed--to targeting population segments and putting people in charge of those efforts way ahead of crunch time, to collecting key endorsements. It's like Howard Dean's organization, POTUS's advisors and volunteers, and an overlay of the old school and fresh faced advisors to pull the whole thing together. It's tight--they've got focus and resolve.
I think we are way the hell overdue for a female Commander in Chief. It's kind of crazy that it has taken this long. This is the 21st Century after all. And there is no one--flat out no one, regardless of gender--who has better bona fides for the job than HRC.
So I don't think it's so much of a crystal ball, it's more like looking down the road, seeing the path ahead, and knowing what town is at the end of that road.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LGBT rights
On December 7, 2003, in an interview with John Roberts of CBS News, then Senator Clinton said that she opposed allowing same-sex marriage while affirming her support for some form of civil unions for same-sex couples:
On March 18, 2013, Clinton, in a video posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, came out in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry "personally and as a matter of policy and law".[175]
Anti-terrorism and domestic surveillance
Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 when it was first enacted.
In December 2005, when a political battle ensued over its renewal, Clinton supported a general filibuster against it, on the grounds that the renewal legislation did not appropriate enough money to New York for anti-terrorism efforts.
Arab-Israeli conflict
As a senator and throughout her career, Clinton had supported a law that requires identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,[54]
however, in September 2011, as Secretary of State, she filed a brief with the US Supreme Court opposing "any American action, even symbolically, toward recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" because of the influence it might have on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.[55]
The section on Iraq is half a book 
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Actually the argument most often espoused is that she is the candidate most likely to beat any Republican opponent, and I have to respect that. She is also probably the person most capable of raising the most money (albeit mostly from Wall Street, with all the problems that implies).
The reason any progressive would support her would be if she did capture the nomination, she would be running against someone far worse. Just like all the last elections since the 50's.
I'm not a HRC supporter, I do agree we need someone more progressive, but really, HRC does have her fervent fan base, not without reason.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I wish there was a huge hard core progressive party. I think we are going to remain under corporate control ...one way or the other. You can't vote Goldman Sachs out of office.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That's why, for Hillary supporters, the argument doesn't have to go beyond "she can win." Ideology doesn't matter; what matters is that our team beat their team. Sure, we may have to hold our nose regarding who's playing for us (just ask any Eagles fan), but then we (might) win! And that's what's important! Because later, when we're lying in a gutter, mud-spattered by the limosine that just blew past us, we can flip off that GOP-1%-er and scream "Yeah? But we won!" And won't we feel better then?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah no reason whatsoever to cheer on our "team" on a DEMOCRATIC Forum...
You people are something else....not sure what...but I do wonder sometimes...
cali
(114,904 posts)And let's not forget the wonderful gift that Bill gave us with NAFTA- to name just one thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Is that what you are saying? On a DEMOCRATIC forum?
Iggo
(47,558 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)seems several here were arguing the exact opposite when it comes to Hillary Clinton! They couldn't even bring themselves to say ^^^ THAT.
That says it all to me about them...
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Since no Democrat is going to bust that trend, why do we need a DLC 3rd-wayer like Hillary in particular?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but she has said she was a Progressive....long before it was "in vogue" by the "uber-hip" crowd on DU.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Her support of TPP?
Her opposition to lifting the FICA Cap?
Ooo, how about her Keystone pipeline advocacy?
And of course there's Iraq.
But she calls herself a progressive! You know, a lot of people call themselves Christians, too; but actions speak louder than words.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ARE you the arbiter of what is 3rd Way? She did use the term Progressive to describe herself before YOU used it to describe YOURSELF. So maybe she is and YOU aren't?
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)The FACT that there exists in Congress something called the "New Democrat Coalition."
The FACT that the New Democrat Coalition was founded as the Congressional arm of the Democratic Leadership Council.
And the FACT that from 21001-2009, Hillary Clinton was member.
You know what else congress has? A Progressive Caucus. You know who never joined it? C'mon, take a guess.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)no???
Hillary does.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts) VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Mine wins...what has YOUR plan done so far?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry to screw up your meme.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Both the New Democrat Coalition and the Progressive Caucus (Bernie Sanders is a member of the latter now, and Paul Wellstone was a member as well). Hillary made her choice, and her choice was to voluntarily affiliate herself with the DCLers, not the progressives.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You think Bernie Sanders can win against Chris Christie? I love Bernie....but even I know better.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)But Hillary sure did.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and he BECAME President.
cali
(114,904 posts)too many people to list.
She may say she's a progressive but outside of social issues, she's anything but.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)yes or no?
cali
(114,904 posts)from an economic pov for the 99%.
But she'll be great for the 1%.
She was a major force behind the TPP- which is a HUGE corporate gift.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the cognitive dissonance is unbelievable...
Again I ask....Is she going to bust the Democratic Jobs creation trend or NOT?
cali
(114,904 posts)There hasn't been an economic boom under this President- something that can't entirely be laid at his feet for sure, but as Krugman says today, this could well be the "new normal".
She will not help the 99%.
She believes, for one thing, in outsourcing jobs.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are YOU saying she WON'T be a net job creator? Those graphics are not outsourced jobs....(which were outsourced long before Hillary runs)
Yes or no?
cali
(114,904 posts)she'd increase corporate profits.
she can't even commit to a federal minimum raise.
I specified Hillary would be bad for the 99%. That's not all dems. It's one specific dem
lunasun
(21,646 posts)BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century?page=0,0
RC
(25,592 posts)Clinton was/is a DLC, Southern Democrat. Obama is also DLC and a corporatist. Neither is Liberal nor really Progressive. To label them as Liberals, instead of Democrats, puts the information in the rest of the chart in question. That alone raised the Red Flag of propaganda with that chart.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)
polichick
(37,152 posts)Instead of Dems vs RepubliCons, the real teams are corporations/mic/1% vs the people.
The game we're currently playing is a charade.
As long as the people are fooled into fighting blindly for their corporate team and against each other, we lose, the country loses - the world loses.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of more than one person. Which explains how idealists end up in small groups and splitting those up into even smaller groups over little issues. Idealists are never going to run the government, they can only inspire, perhaps.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I know it's dispiriting, but it's true. Appointing the people who actually do the work of government is a lot more important than anything else a President does.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)For Mrs. Clinton to become the nominee she will have to endure a withering primary in which her detractors will bring forth every viable criticism (read: the truth) so as to make a more worthy candidate better able to overcome the faux argument of "inevitability." That will make TWO primaries Hillary will have sat at the center of party-rending primaries. That means the GOP will have been all of its opposition research provided free of charge and they will have the advantage of appealing to the middle voters who see a bitterly fractured Democratic party base. The only cure for this is "party unity" now which will to be silence all criticism. Except I'm not convinced that the criticism isn't unnecessary.
So why do we NEED a candidate that is flawed, divisive, lessens us in the eyes of the middle-roaders and will provide the best scenario for GOP opposition?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Because her husband wants to live in the White House again. That's why.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)are coincidence, not primary. That being said I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a 12 to 16 year Clinton presidency. Democracies and dynasties do not mix well.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)I read some of the reasons why you dislike her: her cadences when she speaks, her laughter and now you are dismissive of her as not having a will of her own?
What else do you object to, her hair (that seems to be a popular one), how about her pantsuits (another popular choice)?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I mean, I'll be back next year to debate our 2016 candidates, but right now, I hope to see you in an actual political campaign for 2014.
cali
(114,904 posts)And in my state, there are no contests that could change the composition of the House.
Peter Welch is my rep, and he'll be elected with ease.
I'm more interested in local campaigns here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Registration and phone banking, and working campaigns, and protecting the right to vote...that's what I'm doing.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)the entire House is up for grabs next year and we have to defend all Dems in office and support any possible turnovers. My Congressman (Bishop, NY1) is a prime target and we already see millions of national Republican money sitting in a pot waiting for his challenger. It will only get worse when they know who's running.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)They just want to win. HC is the star QB for the Team.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Thwarted by the insurance lobby as it turned out, but at least she tried.
Between then and 2010, what other progressive politician has attempted to do more to help the uninsured?
Little known fact, but in order to get his vote on the ACA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024010579
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)
Senator Sanders insisted on the one amendment that made the whole corporate give-away palatable--if only marginally so.
-Laelth
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Anybody with the brains of a pomeranian knows that in order to do a health care plan you SHOULD be an elected official with a staff and congressional hearings, not meetings all over the US in peoples homes, AND, just like TPP, no clues were given the rest of the government of what it entailed. It never even got to the House and it should have if Bill had his Speaker in tow.
Michelle Obama is no dummy, and she gets hell for telling people to drink water. The first lady is not the President. We do not vote for a team because no one knows the workings of a married couple, just the illusion they give. We want a spouse to support a president, not carry on as though they were both elected.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If you read up on what the progressive party was you can't place her in that party.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts).... male?
tia
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Instead, she organized the biggest push for universal healthcare that probably had ever been made in the United States. And would not be made again for almost two decades. And I for one giver her points for trying.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Social Security tax cap[edit]
Hillary Clinton supports retaining the Social Security tax cap.[46] The tax cap makes income in excess of $102,000 untaxable. The result is that the top 6% of income earners don't pay the social security tax on income above $102,000. Hillary Clinton called repealing the Social Security tax cap a "tax increase on the middle class."
Edited to add this is from the wiki link above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Oh, and here is another gem:
"Clinton's voting record reveals exceptionally strong support for the expanded use of H-1b guest worker visas"
"Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it,..."
"Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding. However, reporter Carl Bernstein and others have questioned why Clinton would have voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required President Bush to allow more time to UN weapons inspectors and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion of Iraq, if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy."
"Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 when it was first enacted. In December 2005, when a political battle ensued over its renewal, Clinton supported a general filibuster against it, on the grounds that the renewal legislation did not appropriate enough money to New York for anti-terrorism efforts.[110] During the renewal debate she also worked to address some of the civil liberties concerns with it.[111] She then voted in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that passed by an 89–10 margin."
"On November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America"
"Clinton opposes decriminalization of marijuana."
"Senator Clinton voted for President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and still supports it today according to her Senate page on education, while believing that President Bush has not provided enough funding, cutting the program's budget by $12 billion"
cali
(114,904 posts)can't be trusted on it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that's it for me. she's toast. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You do know no candidate will satisfy you completely right?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)And yes, I do know nobody will completely satisfy me. I wasn't born yesterday and I've earned every one of my gray hairs. 
Try:
Voted for Iraq war. Still can't admit it was a mistake.
Voted for Patriot Act. Twice.
Supports No Child Left Behind.
Pushed (failed) surge Afghanistan.
Major sponsor/writer/proposer of TPP.
Strongly supports H1-B program.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It hurts. I note you're not getting many responses. Curious that.
-Laelth
Gman
(24,780 posts)The good things Hillary does. since like March 2001. And she's a Democrat.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Cali can only seem to find the more negative articles about her. I think her computer is set to block anything positive about Hillary. That is the only explanation.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If she won't support raising the cap, Hillary is dead to me. Simple as that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I see no problem with one issue voters. It's a little myopic and lacks the critical thinking skills necessary for big picture thinking. But to each their own. So I support you.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But telling us that raising the cap would be a tax increase on the middle class disqualifies her on that issue alone. Her position on social security informs us that she is no champion for economic justice. The middle class is going away for a lack of economic justice. Our very survival is at stake. But I lack critical thinking skills so, you know.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Of like the last 12 years on DU.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She is often very public about them. She is too hawkish and does support corporate interests. But to make an op acting like nothing about her is progressive is very disingenuous. I know how up to date you are on politics, so the only other option is that you are not being a straight shooter with your op.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-endorses-same-sex-marriage/?_r=0
You can easily find many many issues where she falls directly in line with progressives. You know a couple of those issues off the top of your head.
Cali, this is a shit stirring, democrat bashing op. You could easily refute your own op if you so desired.
That being said, I probably will not be supporting her in the primaries. I will support the challenger who comes in to the left of Hillary.
cali
(114,904 posts)but she's way, way too indebted to corporate interests.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Is it too much to ask for some economic justice? Income and wealth inequality are at levels we have not seen since the 1920s. Something is terribly wrong with this picture. Do you not agree?
-Laelth
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... progressive heros by the left.
Regards
cali
(114,904 posts)argument that if one opposes her it's rooted in sexism.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... shouldn't one think that it's rooted in sexism given the overt disparencies?
cali
(114,904 posts)I dislike Hillary because she's entirely a corporate creature.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Better a knife through the heart by a Republican puke. Rather than death by a thousand paper cuts by Hillary.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...but if Hillary gets the nomination, I can't imagine she won't be a better choice than whoever the Republicans put up!
Really, I see Hillary at about the same place on the spectrum as I see Obama. Neither was my first choice during the 2008 primaries, but I would have voted for either of them over McCain/Palin.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)But I haven't forgetten NAFTA or the fact she was/is on Walmarts board of directors or the dozens of other things that raise red flags about her.
polichick
(37,152 posts)so that the American people can see very clearly what is going on, and rebuild accordingly.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)That's the same mind set that the conservatives used for sitting on their hands when McCain was their nominee. They are probably still kicking themselves.
The purists who want the house to fall should be the ones who end up with Cruz or a similar RW kook for president.
polichick
(37,152 posts)if the people are finally awake and engaged.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)These are the same people who enable Bush to win the WH twice.
polichick
(37,152 posts)but it's also not smart to continue the charade we're enabling now. We really do have two parties that serve corporations and the 1% and no party that puts the people first - yet we allow these two parties to divide us, the American people, while their sponsors rape and pillage our country unabated. That's insane.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Just as I would not defend the TPP, but would take a stab at defending President Obama, here, from the left, I want to take a stab at defending Hillary.
She has two big things going for her:
1) Foreign policy and global recognition. Hillary, I think, would be a powerful force for good around the globe as our President. I was very pleased with the way she handled herself as Secretary of State. She's already forged relationships with most of the key players in governments and industry around the globe. She's generally well-respected in other countries. She would be a champion of the rights of women around the globe and an incredibly powerful symbol for women around the globe--much moreso than any other candidate that we could offer. That's one.
2) Hillary is flexible. Believe it or not, she has shown a remarkable capacity to change her mind. After all, she was a College Republican back in the day. She can change her mind, and she definitely goes with the flow. In a world where the flow is heading rightward, Hillary would bother me (as did her husband), but in a world where the flow is going to the left (and we have good reason to believe that it is), Hillary could become a strong champion of liberal interests and causes ... because she's very flexible. So long as the current is going in the right (left) direction, Hillary will be fine as President. She will g along to get along, and, with the right Congress, that could lead us to exactly the policies that we need to create some economic justice in this country. Hillary needs approval and acceptance, and if she had to turn into FDR (because the situation demanded it), she could do it. She is capable of that kind of flexibility.
Without a doubt, the finance industry is killing us, and Hillary's ties to that industry make all sane liberals uncomfortable, but I have every reason to believe that she could betray those ties, change her mind, and become a champion for economic justice if and only if the nation demanded it (as it did of FDR).
That's about the best I can do for Hillary.
-Laelth
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)but -
(1) her best relationship formed as SS was with Netanyahu, who would bomb every country around him, and some next to them... He is not keen on negotiating. Diplomacy is give and take, so why give when you can just take?
(2) I feel that Hillary wets her finger, sticks it in the air, and whichever way the wind is blowing, that will be her next public "approval" or "disapproval." I've seen in happen...that is not my definition of flexible. It's more lilke a lack of conviction...
But you did well. She won't find a better defense than yours because there isn't one.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)What you see as a possible negative in point #1, however, I see as a positive. Becuae of the relationship she formed with Netanyahu, she may be able to reel him in. That's a good thing.
I agree with you on your second point. In many ways, what I call flexibility, and what you see as a lack of moral conviction, are the same things. Ultimately, I agree, but, as I said, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, Hillary will be fine.
-Laelth
sibelian
(7,804 posts)- I think I would want to hear her vocally jump ship. Publically and everything. SOMEHOW. If the Hopey Popey can say obviously true things about the toxic mindset of disaster capitalism I don't see why she can't.
If she then got in... well. We'd see, wouldn't we? We live in a world of money, all of us, yes, her too. A lot of the problems laid at the door of the White House amount to little more than the sum of human complacency.
I'd prefer Elizabeth.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We're still licking our wounds from trouncings in 1984 and 1988 (seriously). I don't think you'll see any Democratic Presidential candidate come out and say those kinds of things--not for several more years (as our political pendulum swings back to the left). I'd love to hear those things too, but Washington wouldn't tolerate it, I don't think. Whomever said such things would be instantly marginalized and dismissed, I'm afraid.
We need a liberal who fights for economic justice but is rather soft-spoken and non-threatening, i.e. Elizabeth Warren.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)but he has not. I believe we will have a similar problem with Hillary.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We certainly haven't given him a Congress that would allow him to act on our demands. He had something like 40 days with a unified Democratic Congress in 2009, and he used that to get us the ACA. It's not perfect, but it's not bad, either. It appears to me that he has done the best he could under the circumstances.
Now, that said, if he pushes the TPP down our throats, I may regret having defended him here and elsewhere.
-Laelth
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)if you have not demanded that the President become a champion for economic justice where have you been? Many of us have been ranting and raving about unpunished Wall Street fraud that continues today. Millions of us have let the President know in no uncertain terms that we disagree with the DOJ's no-punishment no prosecution of Wall Street bandits. Look at the Occupy movement for example. We have demanded justice but to no avail. Hillary must break out of that mold or she will get no vote from me.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I'll stop playing devil's advocate with you at this point. As you probably know, I've been there with you advocating for economic justice all along.
-Laelth
cali
(114,904 posts)I disagree about foreign policy. Hillary has repeatedly demonstrated that she supports military action. We've seen the disastrous results. I agree when it comes to improving the rights of women and that she'd be a powerful symbol, but Hillary supports such things as outsourcing- certainly not good for women in this country.
As far as flexibility goes, I'd argue that she's an opportunist.
There is little in her history that points to her being a champion for economic justice- to the contrary, she supports the TPP and she can't even bring herself to supporting a federal minimum wage or raising the cap on SS.
but thanks.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)As for Hillary, that's the best I can do, but, as you know, it's not like my heart was in it.
-Laelth
cali
(114,904 posts)I so appreciate your doing that.'
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Great thread, btw. You framed this question in a way that got us all talking to one another, and that's a good thing.
I despise the threads that tell us to shut up. Yours never do that. Kudos, my friend.
-Laelth
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If you say so. Dear lord. You post so many good ops. You have a lot of good and educational dialogue with people. When it comes to Hillary, you are unhinged. Your argument is all over the place. I suggest you stick with supporting someone for the primary, not obsessing over those you hate.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)IF she is the nominee. I'd prefer someone else, really. I dare you to ask me who.......?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Who?
-Laelth
I'd vote for her, nose NOT held.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)My own preference is quite obvious, given my sig. line, but thanks for sharing yours.
-Laelth
William769
(55,147 posts)When there is no mud to be slung.
Hillary has served with dignity & poise all of her adult life over many positions.
She is in private life right now so I am focused on her great achievements she is doing to help women & other groups (we actually have a Group just for this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107 Read some in that Group and open your eyes.
If she decides to run, I will address your bogeyman arguments then and not a moment sooner.
Have a great day!
P.S. With this writing I am only speaking for myself & no one else.
cali
(114,904 posts)Her private life exposes the continuing and baffling greed she and Bill exhibit.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches-2013-10
MADem
(135,425 posts)William769
(55,147 posts) Laelth
(32,017 posts)
-Laelth
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)It appears others have decided that the best use of their time is to launch a daily anti Clinton thread.
Two years is equal to 10 in national politics.
The real question is, if Clinton is such betrayer of progressive causes (and you have to consider Universal Health Care the most important) why is it unlikely she will face a single first tier opponent.
I don't have time for more than a minute or two on DU per day and so will have to ask you to speak for me as well, even though Senator Clinton isn't my first choice.
Gothmog
(145,291 posts)I will worry about 2016 after the 2014 race. Senator Wendy Davis is running against a weak GOP candidate who has financial support but lacks a winning personality. Senator Davis is focusing on single white females and Hispanics in this race. These are also two groups who could be a core area of support for Hillary Clinton in 2016 in Texas. Any candidate who can put Texas into play or otherwise force the GOP to spend money in Texas may be worthy of my support. I am a long time Texas Democrat and liberal who want to see my state turn blue. For now, that means focusing on Senator Davis and later it may mean supporting Hillary Clinton
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Once the 2014 elections are over, and candidates begin announcing that they're planning a run for the Presidency, I'll start writing about the actual choices. Until then, my focus is on 2014. There's a Congress to be won, and that's where my energy is going, not in discussions who might possibly be running for President in 2016. No serious candidate will actually declare candidacy until the 2014 elections are over. Will Hillary run? Probably. Who else will run? I have no freaking idea. Those who say they aren't running may change their minds. Those who say they might be may not. It's too damned early to start defeating people before there is even a race.
GOTV 2014!
William769
(55,147 posts) fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I remember:
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?!
Dignity and poise? I agree the questioner was obnoxious, but he had the right granted to him by congress to ask questions, and she had the duty to answer. her supporters were exuberant.
Dignity and poise my foot. I had Anderson Cooper on when that happened, and he and I were both shocked. It will be played ad nauseum during the campaign.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am genuinely curious. What happened?
-Laelth
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)True, they were making a fuss, and no one thought there was one to be made (However, a few people were let go/asigned to another agency/whatever at the result of Benghazi). She was being questioned as to why the embassy was attacked, and she yelled, "What difference does it make?", and she loudly posed some "maybe" this or "maybe" that's to the questioner.
Of course, the House members are only there for 2 years. She was better behaved at the Senate Hearing, where Lindsay Graham said that if it was up to him, she'd be fired, and she let that pass...
But back to the House, they have the right to ask questions, and people should answer politely, even if their replies are not to the liking of the questioners or vice-versa.
Diplomacy is for diplomats. Like the next day, Kerry was interviewed by the House for his SS position, and at the end of his shpiel, he added, to paraphrase, that Mrs. Clinton did not mean to infer that matters "made no difference," and forget what excuse he made for her rudeness...No one heard that but me apparently.
Sadly, Democrats all cheered her for her actions, which will be played at every Republican commerical against Hillary when the campaign starts in earnest. They've already played it ten times or more that I've seen.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response. Ultimately, I agree that elected representatives deserve respect, and I expect to see that from Democrats responding to elected officials with oversight capacity.
-Laelth
Beacool
(30,249 posts)It'll go right over their heads.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
cali
(114,904 posts)Now what about economic issues?
What about Social Security?
Why does Hillary say that raising the cap on SS would be a tax on the middle class?
cali
(114,904 posts)Don't they have enough of a fortune?
Why in hell would HIllary make two speeches in October to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Has he stopped padding his accounts. Why the hell wouldn't she make $400,000 off two speeches?
MADem
(135,425 posts)speeches and a Japanese holiday...and that was back in '89, when two million was some serious cash?
I guess she doesn't have a "right" to make any money that she might need to put into her campaign coffers.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hillary isn't very progressive. The whole "did you see how much she makes" is nothing but bullshit and hate. It shows the person is making a very dishonest argument. It shows the whole thing is brought of nothing but hate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She's also the smartest and most experienced politician in America--she outshines her husband in that regard. I always thought she was the smartest Clinton in the WH even when Bill had the gig. Mind you, I liked him just fine, but I think her input saved his bacon on more than one occasion.
cali
(114,904 posts)What will they get in return?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Alan Grayson received? Somebody has tunnel vision.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's a stupide cds argument. People are willing to give her what they feel she is worth.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I think HRC is worth every penny of it. I was stating that there is an obvious double standard making it acceptable for Grayson but not Clinton.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)One of those days for me.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Unfortunately it can be difficult to tell positive from negative at times around here.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Blaming it on the pain meds...
Envy for who?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)not what may be returned in the future.
Best way to accept bribes, these fancy expensive speechies.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You might want to watch it too. Amazing person she is.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Wish I could say the same about all your posts, but I'm no saint, either.
-Laelth
DanM
(341 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)potential dem candidate.
But how about Social Security?
How about outsourcing, which she supports?
How about the TPP?
How about every other economic issue?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As long as Hillary is so far taken in by Wall Street and working to give them more power, her social positions might as well be meaningless when Wall Street begins working to undermine them.
It's like saying you're a progressive on social issues, then supporting Citizens United.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I certainly won't ever support her. She's too third way Dem for me.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I guess you don't know that....
You do know that Bill and Hill hosted a huge fundraiser for DeBlasio?
I guess you didn't know THAT either.
Mr. de Blasio, 52, holds a 40-plus percentage point lead in public polling and is widely expected to be elected the city’s 109th mayor on Nov. 5.
Mrs. Clinton hugged and kissed Mr. de Blasio and his wife Chirlane McCray and could be heard saying “two weeks” to the couple outside the hotel following the fundraiser. She left without commenting to reporters.
Mr. de Blasio said he was “gratified” by the endorsement.
“I think what was particularly meaningful to me was she really rallied the crowd,” he said. “She really made clear to people how much we need to finish this campaign strong and how much it mattered if we’re going to achieve the changes we all believe in.”
Are you so naive that you think her former campaign manager, indebted to her for that massive infusion of cash, and featured on the front page of the "Ready For Hillary" PAC webpage, isn't going to return the favor?
I'll have whatever you're smoking.
OK, on to Howard Dean:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/howard-dean-on-2016-at-this-point-im-supporting-hillary-clinton/
Howard Dean's presidential hopes may not be as high as his trips to Iowa and New Hampshire suggest, based on the candidate he currently supports for 2016.
"At this point, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton," the former governor of Vermont told The Des Moines Register Wednesday in an interview in Idaho.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dean-returns-nh-fuels-presidential-speculation
"You never say never in this business because you don't know," Dean told The Associated Press on Monday when asked about his presidential ambitions shortly before delivering a speech in Manchester. "I still have plenty of fire. What is it going to be directed at is the question."....
In NH, he was basically told, after lunching with the NH delegation, that his star has dimmed and he wouldn't get much if any support. That said, I'll bet he'd decisively "direct his fire" at HRC's opponents, if, say, he saw a Health and Human Services appointment at the end of the rainbow. All politics is local!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)You could have explained it without the snark.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"No progressive would ever support her"--like she's trash for the heap-- so all I was doing was giving you back some of what you were dishing out.
What goes around comes around, as they say--you get what you give. Karma and all that.
It's probably a good idea to check before you make declarations like that, or pull a JEOPARDY!, and phrase your assertion in the form of a question.
"Would any progressive ever support her?"
Why yes, they would.....
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)And read the rest of the thread. Many other Progressives don't support her either. Some of us are tired of Third Way DLCers.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The rest of the thread is scattered with a few of "the usual suspects." There is a core of "Hillary haters" here who are more vitriolic than the rightwing "Stop Hillary!!!" (perhaps I should have mixed up a few 111s in with my !!!-- !!1!1!!1!!) crews. They get their anti-Hillary screeds from rightwing sites, and they don't even realize how many friends HRC has across the spectrum in the Big Tent that is the Democratic Party.
She's a consensus builder--not a didactic, inflexible, my-way-or-the-highway, do-what-I-say-or-I'll-take-my-ball-and-go-home whiney crabber. She has worked with Bernie Sanders (and contributed to his Senate campaign) and she has gritted her teeth and worked with John McCain. She doesn't let petty gripes or ideological differences get in the way of achieving what is possible. That, to me, is a LEADER. I don't want a preacher to the choir in the WH, I want someone who will make things happen.
Tina Fey said it best: She gets shit done.
So get past your objections, and get Ready For Hillary!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Because everyone who objects to Third Way, DLC dems must be a RWer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Or a pipe-dreamer who believes that progressives who support HRC are suddenly going to turn on her and withdraw their support because a few keyboard gripers insist upon it.
There are many possibilities, but the end result is the same.
Sooner or later, we'll all be Ready for Hillary....
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)How, exactly, is Hillary Clinton change from the status quo?
I'll give you the answer: she's not.
I'll never be ready for Hillary. If she runs, I probably won't vote for her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If the shoe fits, it's not for me to cram it on your foot.
Chris Christie thanks you for your support, though--even if you don't go to the polls at all!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The poor argument "If you don't vote for X, Y will win".
Any other cliches?
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's OK, though--no one wants to force you to do anything you don't want to do. But just understand that staying home or throwing away your vote has consequences.
I am looking forward to playing a part in making history. So I'm ready--even if you aren't.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)campaign.
Anyone who doesn't understand that he is IN her corner needs a reality check!
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)tunnel vision going on & haters can hate all they want but I'll be damned if I spend my days arguing nonsense all day long.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They also don't understand that in order to have so many friends, one has to BE a friend. And HRC has been a friend. A good, loyal friend who put her money where her friendship was.
I'll bet a lot of these haters don't realize that HRC donated to, among many others, Bernie Sanders' last Senatorial campaign. Now that's an inconvenient truth!
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)further their agenda. We haven't even ramped up for 2014 & this is a regular occurrence.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)She's a friend to the Koch Brothers, the Waltons, and many other billionaires.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
You're just so blinded by Hill Hate, that you can't see what a wonderful person she is. That's your very great loss. But hey, whatever--step aside and let those of us who can see the forest for the trees help make history.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)You're funny.
MADem
(135,425 posts)482. Hahahahahaha.
View profile
You're funny.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
I hardly think Mrs Clinton is as liberal as Nader.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am afraid you have hauled out an apple and proudly showed it to me and compared it to my orange and pretended they're the same--they aren't. OTI is much more data-rich than your site. Also, OTI has five boxes to put a person in--your graph only has four.
Here's the NADER orange, if you're interested: http://www.ontheissues.org/ralph_nader.htm
Ralph Nader is a Hard-Core Liberal.
And here's Hillary--this iteration isn't "Hillary Senate"--it's just Hillary--it might include campaign statements:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
I cannot get the vote match quiz to come up. The percentages page, though, suggests that this is data that was aggregated for the 08 presidential race, as opposed to the senate race. The slight bump over to a "populist" POV makes sense as she is trying to appeal to a broader audience, to include independents and crossovers.
I'm also trying to find what information about the candidates was inputted into your diagram, and I'm not having any luck. As best I can tell, this is also 2008 data.
In the examples I've provided, you can see the questions that are considered, and you can also see how the website crunched and credited the numbers because they list quotes, votes, dates, etc. There are definitive points of comparison in my examples, there's a list of how many points the candidates get for each issue, and the results are totaled on the 2nd page-- and I'm just not seeing that kind of analysis in your graph. They tell us that they input this and that, but they don't show us what went into the punch, as it were. I would like to see how they came to these conclusions.
I get a sense they are not using as much DATA, first off, to come to the conclusion in your example, and they are relying more on "feelings" as much as a few (not insignificant, mind you, but not as many) points that they analyzed. There's a lot of "seem" and "perceived" in that write up, and EVERYONE who is analyzed at your website is more to the right on their chart, even the so-called super-liberals.
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
OTI won't do updated pages until the candidates start declaring for the next go-round, so we are stuck working with material that is a bit outdated and incomplete. And if someone doesn't run, all we have is their old info. I think Nader will stay home this time--he's gotta be pushing eighty. Here's hoping, anyway.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)I'm too wiped out now to observe statistical methods, but I'll try and delve into it tomorrow. My "gut feeling" is saying that the political compass analysis is more accurate.
I admire your persistence, thoroughness, and legitimacy MADem, and I know you are a smart woman. I also know you're aware of how stats are frequently manipulated, especially in the political realm.
On a side note, a best friend is committed to Hillary. He likes her and thinks she's tough, savvy and smart. He was disappointed when she lost to Obama (who I was cheer leading at the time).
I'll also admit to liking Nader, who lived a mere 2 miles from a former residence. His heart is in the right place and someone needed to open the dialogue for the "hardcore" Liberals. I doubt he'll ever run again, but I'm sure he's open to a debate or discussion. I think Sanders has filled the void and will run through the primary debates and drop his support to another Dem (more than likely Hillary).
May the candidate with the least corporate sponsors win!
Cheers!
MADem
(135,425 posts)beholden to We, The People, and not the other way around...!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Several things there I did not know.
-Laelth
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Now, if the perception of the Affordable Care Act is not turned around I am no longer so certain. Whomever our candidate is he or she better be a damn good one.
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)the aca picks on 2 groups,cost wise
50 plus folks are charged 3 times what the young are charged (10-12% of the country falls in there)
smokers are charged double that (15-18% of the country falls in there)
i do not know what the overlap in those 2 groups would be (to get a true percent of people affected)
but it looks like the aca targeting those 2 groups is going to cost lots of what should of been dem votes in 2014
that doesnt take into account the fear rising from the docs not accepting new medicaid,medicare patients or people buying insurance with such high out of pockets they can not use it
the party leaders need to look at this truthfully
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Things I had not considered. Thanks.
-Laelth
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I'd support Hillary, and frankly would do so over Obama (who is also far from being "progressive" .
First, it's unrealistic to run someone who can't win. That means having resources, name recognition, appeal to independents, organization, and experience. Even though I really like Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren and some others, they could not win in 2016. Kerry, Dean, and Biden are not necessarily better as "progressive" except on select issues. Who else would you suggest? Are you looking for a progressive as extreme on our side as Rubio, Palin, Cantor, etc. are to the repubs?
Second, Hillary has been "progressive" on some issues over the past few decades - even ahead of her times. That includes internationals relations, women's rights, health care, and education. No candidate is perfect, and it's not fair to assume that Hillary will be just like Bill. I don't agree with every choice of every issue with ANY candidate, but Hillary would be as good or better than any others that I see out there right now. There is no highly "progressive" candidate that I've seen with even a chance of winning. Remember that the country is NOT 100% progressive, so the goal is to win with the best candidate possible.
What you do in the OP is to ask us to prove a negative: "No one can claim..." I disagree. I think Hillary might be as good or better than Obama on many of the stated issues, but we don't actually know what will happen in the future. There will be a Democratic platform (influenced by the party nominee), and I'll vote for the Democrat.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)"Are you looking for a progressive as extreme on our side as Rubio, Palin, Cantor, etc. are to the repubs?"
So who would be the Democratic equivalents of these people that could never be elected?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)from my generation - maybe Jerry Brown or Al Sharpton. There are definitely some who are more left-leaning than Hillary, but to win they'd have to attract some independents. Maybe Al Franken?
I don't think they could win, but it would be nice.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)Gothmog
(145,291 posts)First and foremost, I am not going to worry about 2016 until we get past 2014. I am working hard to make Texas competitive in 2014 by supporting Wendy Davis.
There has been a couple of polls that show that Hilary Clinton could put Texas into play. Right now, we are running Senator Wendy Davis for Governor against a relatively weak republican candidate. I have looked at the numbers and Senator Davis has a chance based on increasing Hispanic voting and appealing to white single females. These are the same groups who would make Hillary Clinton a good candidate in Texas.
I was at some party meetings in March and April and there were some who were advocating that Texas Democrats had to wait until 2016 for Hilary Clinton. That view has changed due to Wendy Davis. I have not seen Democrats this excited since I have been voting. Again, single white women and Hispanics are the two groups that could help Wendy Davis and these are the same groups who would be in play if Hillary Clinton ran. I think that I will spend my time worrying about 2014 and wait until after the 2014 election before I worry about 2016.
After the 2014 races are over, I will be glad to pay more attention to 2016. I expect that I will be supporting Hillary Clinton in large part because she could help move Texas toward being blue. If Senator Davis wins in 2014, then Hillary Clinton will be able to take advantage of this work and the GOP would have a hard time winning against Hillary Clinton in 2016 if Texas was in play. While I am a liberal and a progressive, I am also a person who wants to see my state turn blue. That is going to affect my preferences.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)It's not like the Hillary haters are suddenly going to change their minds about her.
Hillary will or won't be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Her detractors can then decide to vote for her, or not.
But I do look forward to the inevitable freak-outs at DU if she does win the nomination.
Sid
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)See my general post downthread.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)original post would not have setup the argument in the form that "Hillary is not a progressive".
There are plenty of issues that Hillary is progressive on, and there are issues that she would not be considered progressive on, but this thread is not to discuss those issues. It is to just stir things up.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It appears to me that this thread has gotten a lot of us talking about important issues that matter to us a great deal, obviously. That's a good thing, isn't it?
-Laelth
Beacool
(30,249 posts)
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)+1
PB
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)it never occurred to me we needed to present an argument for her or any other candidate. Seems to me there will be plenty of time for arguing, especially here on DU AFTER the candidates declare.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) I think she's fine on social issues like choice and marriage equality.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)Could have something to do with not wanting to waste our breath spitting in the wind against a contingent of people already dead set against her. With all due respect for your own beliefs, I have more productive ways to spend my time. Not everyone's going to take the red meat bait when it's waved before them. Doesn't mean we have no case or that we quail before opposition. But as dear old dad used to say, only a jackass answers every donkey that brays. Present company excepted!
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)To deal with our 15 year old son. Let the kid gripe as he is walking away & the issue is done. Why follow after him & escalate the situation when it is completely unnecessary & going to get you nowhere. In the end it will all work itself out regardless.
I'm not big on starting shit for no reason, especially when my blood pressure & anxiety is the only thing that will end up out of whack.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Some of us are more open-minded than you assume.
-Laelth
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)There's a time to talk and a time to save your breath for more profitable enterprises. Some people NEVER listen no matter how long you reason and/or plead with them. When a person through concerted and continued effort shows him/herself to be that sort, I can turn away w/o any regret whatsoever. Anybody who neglects more fertile fields just to keep on trying to plow rock is caught in a fool's game.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Otherwise, there's wisdom in Ms. Angelou's argument. Sad that it applies to allies and foes alike.
-Laelth
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)the most part. It's a human trait we all share and must keep our guard up. If/when I feel the need to be more specific, I do so. You'll never need to wonder!
Marr
(20,317 posts)if he were the nominee?
I know this isn't exactly on point, but for years, we've all heard conservative Dems squawk about how it's your duty as a Democrat to vote for corporate shills like Hillary Clinton when they're the nominee-- but they never do the same for liberals on the rare occasions when it's option. Quite the opposite, in fact. They either abandon the effort or openly embrace the Republican candidate.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Worthy of further exploration, I would say.
-Laelth
JEB
(4,748 posts)After Jeb we can have Chelsea (Clinton not Manning). After Chelsea we get some semi sober Bush relative. Then Bill's ghost to flush the last American job down the corporate profit toilet.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)
nominee, I will support her and vote for her. The only thing that will change my mind about her is if she and/or her husband return to the Racial Politics of 2008. I can assure you that I and many other black voters will not be enthusiastic about supporting Mrs. Clinton. Should Bill Clinton continue to be divisive in any way, demonstrate derision towards the current president, or spew any rhetoric that could be construed as derisive, divisive or racist in any form or fashion, Mrs. Clinton will not get support from me. I am so fucking serious about this.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)isn't it?
Are you going to be able to keep up the bull shit for the next few years?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm not sure that's the case either. I'd have to see who the repuke is first before I find that to be a compelling argument. I think the repukes have a decent chance of putting up a candidate ANYONE can beat.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That's my argument.
-Laelth
Gman
(24,780 posts)Why waste the time? She's very well known. It's not like an OP will change everyone's minds. I remember the primaries of 08 all to well. Just what purpose would an OP serve?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... but increase WalMart profits at the expense of their employees and the taxpayers?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)all you have to do to see that is read the news.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)funding of EPA, against Vouchers because it would take money away from public education, for tough gun control laws, for universal healthcare coverage, and a lot of other issues which are definitely progressive, including preserving and protecting social security and Medicare. Against their privatization
Just you final question, "why would any progressive support her?", demonstrates your lack of objectivity, to imply that there are no issues that she is progressive on. In fact, she is progressive on more issues than not.
Does that mean there are not more progressive candidates, of course not, but since I have posted some positive things about her, I have no doubt that I will be attacked as being DLC, right winger, or other inane things that people have accused me.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)corporate control and influence.
I hate that she supports the TPP, fracking, outsourcing and other things that hurt people.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... again, there are going to be some issues I'm not going to agree with HRC on and it sounds like they're pretty limited relative to her history in politics.
Can we get someone much for left than HRC, of course, the outsourcing issue hits right on the button for me cause I'm in IT... I'm not going to give up the perfect or good for adequate though and say I'm not going to support her future wise if she's moved to the left on so many other issues and the few that I see I'm disappointed with.
Again, FDR would've been despised by those who don't support HRC...
He did so many things that would've deemed him a conservative but he's hailed as a hero...
cali
(114,904 posts)I just don't know enough yet to support her.
Again, FDR was not the corporately owned creature that Hillary is.
And again, your argument is anachronistic.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)FDR was FROM banking, hell... the same can't be said about HRC!!
If this doesn't fail the "corporatist" litmus by what I've seen from them now then nothing does unless the goal post is moved!?
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/facts/
The Roosevelt family was New York based and involved in commerce, banking and insurance, shipbuilding and seafaring, urban real estate and landholding. Although a lawyer by training, James Roosevelt's interests were in business where he was a respected figure in the field of finance, transportation (railroads), and philanthropy.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)That has nothing to do with what he did in office. Why don't you post some articles about how people from his socio/economic class viewed him as a traitor to his class for his political accomplishments? Or some articles about their plot to overthrow him? Maybe some links to the New Deal? The Second New Deal? Any of those would defeat your lame argument.
I've repeatedly seen posts from you trying to paint FDR as a corporatist, in multiple threads. Maybe you should crack a history book instead of trying to tear down one of the greatest Democratic presidents in our history.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)Clinton wins the primary..she has my support all the way.. if Warren wins the primary..she has my support all the way.. If Sanders decided to be a Democrat and take the primary.. he would have my support all the way.
Because the office shapes the canidate.. and if and when they do make major changes it is with tremendous angst.. and turmoil.. Obama has stood up to the test.. and kept moving forward.. Clinton is tough stuff too..
Sanders would worry me.. I am afraid he could not stand up to that pressure.. he is more of an agitator for change. Not everyone is cut out for that kind of maneuvering. I have very little concern though.. he will give up his Independent status He is a voice that needs to be heard..
I think Warren has the stuff to do it if she decides to run. Again though I have not seen one thing that tells me she has the least bit of interest in that.
But I am telling you honestly .. who ever gets in there even if it is your dream canidate.. who ever that would be.. I have no idea.. they will disappoint you if cannot accept that the office will have its impact on them.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That's enough for me.
-Laelth
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)She is a great Democrat..
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Are we going to be subjected to daily bash Hillary threads?
We get it, you and some others don't like her. Well, vote for someone else and leave the rest of us alone. Anyway, there's no amount of explaining our support that would satisfy you.
Is this just an effort to further divide DU?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Beacool
(30,249 posts)It has a lot to do with the constant bashing of a Democrat who right now could win hands down against any opponent, and also the bashing of her supporters.
People should present their case for their candidate of choice, but the name of this board includes the word "Democratic". The Clintons happen to be Democrats, whether some people like it or not. Besides, aside from the rarefied LW blogs and punditry, where is there this huge call to arms to run the farthest Left wing candidate who most likely would be clobbered by whoever the Republicans nominate?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)You're right about that from what I can tell. That said, the demographic trends tell us that the Democrat will win in 2016 no matter whom we run. The right-wing and their sycophants in the media will paint whomever we run as the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin. If that's the case, why shouldn't we run a real liberal?
The Clintons are, indeed, Democrats, and they saw us through some of our darkest years under the shadow of Ronald Reagan, but they're not really liberals, are they?
-Laelth
polichick
(37,152 posts)Big decision time - are Dems simply a different brand of corporate partner or do we still stand for old-fashion Dem principles designed to further justice, strengthen 100% of the population and protect the planet?
The party needs to fight this out.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)I don't see the whole party dividing as of yet, regardless of what was published in New Republic. It may expand or not, it's too soon to tell.
polichick
(37,152 posts)who are done - TOTALLY DONE - with corporate candidates. If the party keeps dishing up this kind of "leader," these voters (many of them young with long political futures ahead) will find another home.
(Didn't see what was published in New Republic.)
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Democrats who don't agree with the LW of the party may also find another home. If that turns out to eb the case, the ones who will benefit will be the Republicans.
In 2010, many here were cheering for the demise of the Blue Dogs. They got their wish and quite a few of them lost their Congressional seats. Did those seats get filled by Left leaning candidates? Hell no, they were filled by conservatives. Yeah, the Tea Party bunch got in.
Whooppeee!!!!
polichick
(37,152 posts)our corporate candidates are "bad guys" too.
A pox on both your parties, a lot of young people say. They're right.
I'd rather vote FOR something than against someone and, if necessary, hit rock bottom quickly so that it's clear who's doing what. This "one corporate party/two faces" charade is insane.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)polichick has a point here. If the Democratic Party fails to listen to that demographic, if it fails to respond, if it ignores them and alienates them, that will seriously hurt the party--much moreso than this little tiff we're having now.
No, as I said in a post above, whether the Democratic Party will remain pro-corporate is an issue that needs to be hashed out, and it needs to happen now, imo. I am tired of going backward. I desperately want to believe that the Democratic Party is ready to move forward again.
This is something I think we all need to discuss.
Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
-Laelth
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The issue you identify needs to be hashed out, and it needs to happen now. Income and wealth inequality are are levels we have not seen since the 1920s, and I'm sick of it. I am tired of going backward. I desperately want to believe that the Democratic Party is ready to move forward again.
This is something we all need to discuss.
-Laelth
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Count on it. It's only just begun.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I wouldn't.
Not during the early primaries, not even near the end...
Not unless the last choice between her is a Freshman Congressperson or Senator, then I might. I tend to go for the one I know rather than someone I don't. I never go for hype. I tend to always vote for what I think would be the least damaging candidate as soon as my choice becomes limited.
During the primaries, I can vote for who I think would be the best possible option, but I tend to lose hope by the time the actual election happens.
polichick
(37,152 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)This is a thread meant to sow division.
If a low poster did this, it would get hidden.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)This is what she's been doing all along.
cali
(114,904 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)comes along. Hillary Clinton has been the leading advocate for children's rights in this country since she was First Lady of Arkansas and a terrific lawyer at the Rose Law firm. Had she stopped there, and never done anything else, she would have been more liberal and accomplished more than anyone posting crap on this message board. Her accomplishments continued up through her service as a very effective Secretary of State. While I would consider supporting Sen. Warren over Clinton for the nomination, Sen. Warren has made it clear that I don't have to make that choice.
I get that the OP hates Hillary Clinton. I want to remind everyone that the OP has never done anything for any of us here, unless you consider spouting opinions of dislike something useful.
My suggestion is to recruit another choice for candidate, or at least name your choice and ask them to run, or leave the party.
cali
(114,904 posts)is, at this point in time, largely hollow.
Her work at the Rose Law firm is problematic.
I do not hate Hillary. I hate that she represents the 1% rather than the 99%.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Your problem is that you are hating what must be dealt with. Hate creates blind spots. We are going to need to elect someone in 2016. That someone is going to have to be elected in our system of politics. That means someone who is known and who has some backing. And at election time, that means about a billion dollars in backing for the winning side. Maybe more. In this cycle, Hillary can probably raise that much money. Maybe Joe Biden can, but it will be tougher for him than Clinton. If our nominee wins, then we can hope for good judicial appointees and policies that are better for us than if the Republican wins. Cruz and Rubio and Christy seem to be the early Republican contenders. Any of those three would set the country back tremendously.
If not Hillary, then who can do it? There is no substitute for winning. She can fight and she knows how and has a record of doing just that. Is she perfect? No. But she is a very good choice and can win.
cali
(114,904 posts)If not hillary, who?
Do you actually think she's the only dem who could win?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)now is the time to start recruiting that person. If all you are going to do is tear down the front runner without suggesting a few other names, then you are doing the work of the other side, it doesn't matter whether you know it or not.
Me, I want Hillary Clinton, and if she isn't running, then Elizabeth Warren. But Hillary Clinton is running, and Elizabeth Warren isn't. I suppose I might support Warren over Clinton if given the choice, but Warren has strongly indicated that she is not running.
So who? Stop tearing down the party's leading contender and offer some names. What you are doing is what a Republican astro-turfer would be doing. You claim not to be one, but you are doing their work. Until you actually get a candidate and do some work for that candidate, you are hurting the only person who has indicated that she will run, and nothing else. You are sowing discord.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)discovering on here, that most just post 2 or 3 sentences, probably because that's all most will read anyway. I know all the evils of Hillary. Still, I've been fairly prolific in my reasons, logic, and realities...and agree with just about everything you said.
I harp on the billion dollars that it takes to win the White House and how absolutely ludicrous that places the histrionic anti-corporate/pros Church Supper/Senior Citizens Center/Town Hall Fund-Raising options, absent the evil corporations millions. I'm now calling my Crickets Argument...cause that's all I've heard.
So, I think there are many more here that prefer not to get the snark. Personally, it doesn't bother me and I'd gladly contribute. My posting history is clear...but being a Left Liberal and an independent thinker and willing to listen to Logical Arguments and shift my opinion if it makes sense to me...that some attractive Progressive could actually run and get major support here, barring a pretty high Purity level, there are few other than major corporate recipients/shills...Republican or Democrat. They all do it...is really a fact in this matter. So getting one who can't? Not likely in this election. (Also, I am terrible at three sentence quips.)
It's a Catch-22 that's highly inconvenient.
(she's not my favorite, and I'd strongly consider anyone that fits into paragraph three.)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That said, I note that Elizabeth Warren is already the 3rd best fundraiser in the Democratic Party (right behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). What Noam Scheiber demonstrated in his recent New Republic essay is that there are two, separate fundraising machines now operative at the national level in the Democratic Party. One is controlled by the Clintons. The other was shut-out by the Clintons, formed around the candidacy of John Kerry, and inherited by Barack Obama.
Who gets the Obama machine for 2016? That is the big question, and whomever inherits that machine can win with it (unless said candidate is crushed by Clinton machine before he or she can even get out of the starting gate).
That may be precisely what we're seeing in this thread.
-Laelth
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I always enjoy reading your well-informed posts. I'm still learning and even hoping and hope those who've been at this more diligently over the past decade will continue to post and discuss.
This generation has an advantage no other has had...social media. Ha, I remember Foley...first one caught "red handed" with inappropriate IM...thought nobody could ever know. Cell phones with cameras and audio...Mitt learned the hard way about that. I go back to B&W TV...LOL...and the smoky back-room politics...literally. Progress.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Scheiber's essay is here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, the internet has changed the world. We, the People of the United States, gave it to the world for free, and I am proud of that.
-Laelth
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That and another of the articles were very helpful, insightful and also entertaining, yea funny, without being Gallows Humor, in places.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)In the interests of balance and fairness, you may also want to read what Charles Pierce had to say about Scheiber's essay, here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-2016-111113
Mr. Pierce didn't appreciate Mr. Scheiber's essay quite as much as I did, to put it mildly.
-Laelth
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)It's that darned Liberal stuff...not wishy-washy, just strong opinions while still listening and willing to reconsider...up to The Day of Reckoning, in fact. I think that's why we drive those that lean more toward Populism nuts. Bring me a new fact, an exciting new viable candidate, something I haven't thought of before...Please. LOL
Appreciate your copious and Fair and Balanced (no, really) posting.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have always argued that the principal requirement of a liberal world-view is an open mind. There's a reason liberals are right 90% of the time. The only way to be regularly right is to be ever-open to the possibility that one's current views may be wrong. Then, when new evidence comes along that contradicts one's current views, having an open mind allows liberals to change their minds and advocate for policy based upon real-world evidence (like the obvious fact that supply-side economics does not work). Contrast that attitude with conservatives who continue to believe in "voodoo economics" despite all the evidence that it's a failure.
In sum, it's better to be constantly learning.
-Laelth
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)If Elizabeth Warren changes her mind, I'd be interested in taking a look at her. I'd be interested in seeing what other dem governors might throw in their hats.
And NO I will not stop criticizing Hilary. I think she'd be bad for democracy.
And NO, again. What I'm doing is what true liberals and progressives do, thy not to have corporate owned candidates.
YOU are doing the work of the filthy corporations and big money. Why?
I don't want to shut you up. Why are you so determined to shut down voices that oppose the corporate agenda you support?
2banon
(7,321 posts)By Joshua Holland, Moyers & Company
Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:22 EST
The reality is that the fight over the direction of the party will determine the ideological lean of the nominee, not the other way around. Presidential nominees tend to hew closely to their party’s median vote in Congress. If the Democrats end up adopting a more populist platform, than Clinton, if she runs, will move to the left regardless of who is challenging her. This kind of analysis is, of course, less fun than the horse race.
there's more to this analysis at link.. but Holland finishes with this simple summary:
To which I say, Yes! Can we at least wait until after the midterms are decided? At Least???!!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)They talk about it all the time. It is highly relevant to how they position the local/county races and they work with the State Organization who then interfaces with the National Organization. (And so do the Republicans)
He and the county Democrats lean Progressive, and if someone else shows up as relevant, it just shifts the conversation and makes it even more interesting. But you can bet they will vote for the candidate who wins the Primary...and that work is going on right now.
There are truly shades of gray in politics and lots of conversations to be had. The only irrelevant conversations are those after being in the individual balloting stall when you have to pull a level, click on a name, or check off a box. Until then, every political influence, coffee chat, conversation at work is influential and important and wields greater influence than even a private vote.
So, my thoughts would be that those who are so very dissatisfied with the Democratic Party due to their definition of insufficient options and grudges from the past, they are the ones that should wait until after 2016, because that crap influences other, less politically evolved people. Why? Often because they don't know enough, or because they just get tired of the BS and stay home.
Say something good or just, please, wait at least until 2016 and even then try to tone it down a bit for the less-informed masses.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)Considering how that campaign ended.........
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)this deal of eating our own. especially if those that don't like hillary are talking about running sanders or warren.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)You seem to have quite the obsession about her. I won't bother to justify why I'd vote for her, lets just say I'll vote for any Democrat that the Party nominates. Kind of a no-brainer.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)a candidacy for squat.
I'm a little tired of everybody's obsession with her, especially given how she is NOT, as you have pointed out, a progressive.
I don't plan to forget her days as a Goldwater girl.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)When she was in high school. On the other hand, let's forget that Warren was a Republican until her mid 40s.
This place is beyond nutty at times.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)many years. Or maybe you hate her as well!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)She saw the light. She changed her mind. She has been a strong advocate for economic justice since 1995.
Can you say the same about your preferred candidate?
-Laelth
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)just quit attacking her and concentrate on promoting their own candidates? Probably because their picks are so weak that the only way they can even get any attention is by smearing the front runner. It's kind of pathetic.
This lifelong Liberal Democrat is for Hillary because I believe she has the power and guts to actually get things done. She also has the ability to sweep many Democrats into House, Senate and even local seats in 2016. Dragging her around in the mud for two years won't help us in any way.
Endorse your new Kucinichs all day long. Just remember, Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a chance against Chris Christie and destroying the one candidate who can beat him is just teabaggery on the left.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)I may have to just steal your last comment.
"Endorse your new Kucinichs all day long. Just remember, Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a chance against Chris Christie and destroying the one candidate who can beat him is just teabaggery on the left."
Very descriptive.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Since the right-wing is going to paint whomever we run as the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin, why shouldn't we run a real liberal?
Do you have an answer to that, or not?
To those who would like to encourage her to run, contact information can be found here. Write to her or call her. You can make a difference!
You can add a Warren 2016 banner to your DU sig. line here.
You can join the Elizabeth Warren Group here.
-Laelth
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I, too, would really like to hear some arguments in FAVOR of Hillary--mostly because I would really like to feel like I can support her in 2016 (as opposed to simply going with the lesser of two evils). I would expect that Hillary supporters would have the biggest interest in promoting whatever progressive qualities she may have, since her potential issues with the base (i.e. us) are well known.
Cali is right that the pro-Hillary posts all seem to talk about her inevitability. (I confess that I may have missed some more substantive threads.) I find the horse race business interesting, and enjoy those threads, but they're frankly meaningless--remember how Howard Dean seemed inevitable for a while there too?
The question in the OP, therefore, is quite justified. But based on this thread, it appears that I should support Hillary because:
1. Hillary is inevitable, positions be damned;
2. Democrats are generally better than Republicans;
3. If we run a progressive, we'll lose, so we shouldn't even talk about it;
4. Cali doesn't like Hillary;
5. Since we didn't run a progressive last time, if we don't run Hillary, we're sexist*;
6. Cali is trying to impose a purity test that no Democrat should ever presume to apply to Hillary;
7. Cali is a shit-stirrer; and
8. Cali is secretly a right-winger who wants the Republican to win.
* (Never mind that Obama campaigned as a progressive)
To those of you whose minds are already made up: Is that really the best you've got? If Hillary is the candidate, she'll probably get my vote (and that of just about everyone else here) on account of reason #2. But would someone please at least TRY to explain why I should be pro-Hillary and not just anti-2016's-teabag-nutjob??
I can't wait to talk with my friends in 2016 and tell them they should vote for Hillary because, "you see, there's this person who goes by 'cali', and...."
Please?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)her associations and friendships with leaders around the world and across the political spectrum, but I guess no one reads that stuff.
If you don't read it, then you can claim that you "haven't heard any arguments."
Here, try this one on: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024050756#post86
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Not a peep about positions. All I see is "experience, her record, her ability to achieve consensus, her powerhouse debating and fundraising skills, her connections, the fact that she knows--PERSONALLY-- every frigging world leader by first name and has pressed the flesh and broken bread with them, and probably has the biggest players on her cellphone speed dial..."
Before that, I see "I hate Cali"!
After that, I see "Progressives are so stupid!"
(Just like when I read it the first time....)
MADem
(135,425 posts)You don't think knowing, with no small degree of familiarity, every leader in the world doesn't give a prospective President an enormous advantage? You don't think working in the Senate for nearly a decade and having a leadership role in that body isn't helpful? You don't think being able to call on people in public life from across a wide swathe of experiences and expertises might not be useful?
And I'm not the only one pointing this out. You want positions, too? Real down in the weeds stuff? Like they're actually NEWS to any Democrat who was seven years of age or older when her husband became President? Good lord, you can hit Ye Olde Google and cough up her positions--and her evolution on many of them-- just as well as anyone else--not that anyone who has not been hiding in a cave or willfully ignoring her down the years doesn't already know them.
But hey, affecting naivete is a strategy, I suppose....
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)First, I'm not saying Hillary is light on substance. I'm saying the argument of yours that you linked to is light on substance, and I'm saying that because it is. Or is a syllogism of the form "ad hominem attack" - "statement of the obvious" - "ad hominem attack" simply missing from my volume of Aristotle?
Obviously those relationships are huge, and factor into the "experience" argument. And the "experience" argument worked very well for George H. W. Bush. But that's all you're arguing. Vote for the boring person who's experienced and probably better than a Republican.
You vaguely insinuate in the linked post that Hillary is in favor of peace, too. I'll bet she is. I'll bet she even likes flowers and puppies, too. And guess what? That alone would, in fact, make her a better candidate than, say Mitt Romney, who was notably deficient in those areas. I'm sorry though, it doesn't get me excited. The bare minimum is not exciting.
Seriously, you're acting like we, as progressives, are somehow morally deficient because we get more excited about steak than beans. Or Maseratis than bicycles. Or San Diego than Nome. Or, God forbid, a thoughtful engagement on the issues than half-hearted platitudes.
What I'm really hoping is that someone, anyone will bring up some lesser-known remarks she's made which might give us hope. Or maybe make an argument along the lines of "she holds positions x and y, which means she might push for policy z". Or something outside the most banal and obvious that might cause us to reconsider our impressions of Hillary. It would appear that that's too much to ask.
Let's turn this around, though. Since we all know how Republicans have the election system rigged, we all know that turnout is going to be a big issue. Do you think "inevitability" plus "rolodex" is going to be a winning strategy for getting out lukewarm voters?
Frankly, I think Hillary will run, and I think she'll win, and I think she'll do it with my vote. I'd like someone to lay off the sophomoric snark and actually tell me something about her that (a) I may not know and (b) that might make me feel good about the vote I'll likely be casting.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I provide you with specifics, in a link that details Clinton's stances on every frigging issue since the nineties, and you still play the obtuse naive one?
You want to learn about her--click the doggone link in my post. EVERYTHING you want to know is there on that web page. It's not called "On The Issues" because it's dealing with her nail polish color or her taste in pantsuits.
Good grief. Who's being "sophomoric" here? I didn't "vaguely insinuate" anything, but nice try--I thought I was entirely specific--her entire LIFE is on that web page. And if you are unclear on her national defense stance, that's in the Issues link I provided to you.
Here, try AGAIN....and maybe scroll down this time. "War and Peace" is about two thirds of the way down.
You want "some lesser known remarks?" There are HUNDREDS on that page. On every conceivable subject. In small and smaller print....AND there are links to further information on that web page.
If you're still unclear, I can't help you any more. Here's where she shakes out:
Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
If Clinton has an Hispanic running mate, maybe even one from Tejas, she can't lose. Even without one, she's going to kick ass and take names. When she declares, wins the primary, and Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders and a host of others line up to endorse her, she'll have a lock, and the ground game she's already rolled out will GOTV. People like me will scurry around picking up people and driving them to the polls, from the minute they open until they close. One thing I do know how to do is get bodies to voting booths, it's what I do, and I am not the only one who does this kind of thing for every local, state and federal election.
The GOP is in disarray. Their donors are not donating. Even the Jersey Big Boy doesn't get their juices flowing. All she needs to do is keep the mojo working--and an historic election that will see the first woman President in the Oval Office is a big fricken deal--people will turn out to take part and say "I was there, and I was on the right side of history."
Make no mistake.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)It was that incredibly-specific FOURTH argument from inevitability that won me over! Thanks for that!
I don't know why her work on TPP worried me so much, my little brain probably strayed off onto the subject of puppies!
Good thing you're so much smarter than me! Thanks a million! I'm ready for Hillary!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)But you didn't even bother to look at the first link I gave you, so why would you look him up to compare the two?
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bernie_Sanders.htm
Bernie Sanders is a Hard-Core Liberal.
You have one of those real nice days, now.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)But I'm kind of disappointed that "make an interesting argument" is read as "link to a good web site".
Regarding goading/baiting, you're the one who started with the insults. I was commenting on the low quality of argumentation in this thread.
I commend you, regardless, for at least engaging.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When I am being gamed and goaded, I am going to point it out.
Do you insist that -- even when the information is packaged neatly, concisely, and in a fashion that is easy to digest--that posters write you a little essay, or cut and paste, just to satisfy a vague desire for 'argument' when the point is made just by reading the page? Of course, the actual reading of the page is the key.
Why gild the lily? It is, as you yourself said, a really good web site. It gives you a very clear picture of a candidate and it is not just a snapshot, it is a retrospective of an entire career. You can see where politicians have evolved or modified their positions as they've become more involved in the process.
I've been going to it for years. I dragged it over to DU, years ago, in fact.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)only refer to inevitability, not because it is Her, but as merely a logical conclusion that exists in reality at this point in time.
And no, it's not too early. It's high time to generate some energy for her and the party. She is the only one who is acting interested, other Democrats tend to agree with her, the Republicans are terrified of her, and the polls currently support her popularity. Polls are not gods and they obviously err, change, inflate or deflate but they are what we have right now. And she hasn't even yet declared.
And the quickie zingers are boring as hell.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I just haven't heard much to be excited about.
Also, sometimes those quickie zingers are funny. Even when I disagree with the poster.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Rodham...her preferred surname prior to the archaic demands of the pre-Victorians that pose as politicians. (I did it in two sentences, and an aside)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)That's one of the reasons I come here so much.
I'm about as liberal as they come, but I'm also hoping that "moderate" Republicans in Congress start finding their consciences and becoming Democrats. That could mean an influx of Blue Dogs, which would suck for my agenda; I hold these contradictory wishes in my head, but don't claim to have reconciled them.
It's going to be the more conservative Democrats on here who help me figure that out. So yeah, I lose my temper sometimes, but I really want to hear what the DLC types have to say when they're not bashing us.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I ignore the obvious paid conservadem trolls here... the ones who think they run the place...
There are plenty on this thread.
There are also plenty of reasonable folks in the middle of the party who are not here to skew discussion rightward. I should pay more attention to them, and not their self-appointed mouthpieces here.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...but I try.
But by way of context: I'll bet I'd have an easier time working with the biggest asshole on DU than I would with someone like Jeff Duncan, Blake Farenthold, Raul Labrador.................
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
whathehell
(29,067 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)this is from Armando, a staunch Hillary supporter who used to blog at Talk Left and is now a feature writer for Daily Kos:
I have what is probably an unpopular view—I think progressive values and goals for 2014 and 2016 are best achieved not by "Stopping Hillary!" but instead by attempting, as best as possible, and presenting her with a Democratic Party that is firm in its progressivism. This would be achieved by "persuading" Congressional Democrats and potential candidates that they need to adopt progressive values and positions.
<...>
It's a long read. Shorter: Don't stop Hillary, help her.
The post is titled: "How can progressives influence presidents"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/17/1255573/-How-can-progressives-influence-presidents
Which begs the question: If this is the formula, why hasn't it been used to influence the current President? Is there any reason to wait for Hillary?
Selling Hillary is in full swing.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)READY FOR HILLARY had a day-long conference in NYC last week and have been organizing to both build national volunteers and to promote and encourage her getting into the race. Maybe posting to a blog where most people have already made up their minds isn't worth the trouble.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Why bother arguing with people who have already decided that they are not going to vote for her? Our time is better spent elsewhere.
cali
(114,904 posts)I believe you're a Hillary supporter and somewhat of a party insider from what you've posted.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)tame compared to half of my Right Wing, Fundamentalist, Bircher family.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)But they're trying!!!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts) Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JEB
(4,748 posts)Why don't we speculate about who will run when Hilary is done? It would be just as pointless and a lot more fun. Hilary has been rehashed more than last week's pot roast. The wingnuts already have their propaganda movies made. The Hillary supporters have talking points memorized for years now.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Maybe we should just start lining up random kid pictures and deciding which one will be most presidential in the next 30 or 40 years. I would propose my 11 year old but considering his nickname is goldfish & his goals at this time include living in a tent in my front yard I'm not sure he is right for the job.
JEB
(4,748 posts)He's got my vote for now.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)How about Dean? Hey, how about Gore? He's already won once.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)If you ask what are the top accompishments of Hillary as SoS, well, you get nothing.
I think most air miles gets in there somehow, or those Hillary texting cartoons that someone else made up.
And the fact that she was always tired just means she Werked Hard, you don't need no other reason!
I don't think Hillary Can run, unless she is planning more Tuzla like heroics.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think she is the most qualified of the group of people running and she has my support.
No she is not perfect, her vote on Iraq showed that, but I think she would do great as President.
Unlike what others think I think she will do fine on Core Democratic Issues.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)she helped draft the TPP. Those are 2 huge strikes against her as far as core Democratic issues.
I supported her in 2008, once it was between her and Obama, but I'm not so sure this time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)at least around here. The same people who think Obama is a liberal think Hillary is a liberal. I guess they haven't had enough corrupt banks and for-profit health insurance yet, lol.
They also cite Hillary's name recognition, which is actually a bad thing as she's recognized as a 1%er who would have a corrupt bank cabinet, a war mongering cabinet, an "it's off the table" cabinet in regards to holding criminals accountable and she'd fully support any corrupt "free trade" agreements.
That's a "conservative" everyone, not a liberal.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Does she support the TPP? Howz about supporting continuation of the Patriot Act? Has she committed to not cutting SS, Medicare or Medicaid?
The OP is just trying to flush out her stands on important issues.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As far as I know she has not said anything on Medicaid, Medicare, and SS. I hope she does come out against cutting them.
She has not really come out on issues yet. She is laying low because she does not want to commit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There is a wealth of info on the TPP in the Progressive MR Group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/126999
I would hope you would save you support for HRC until you found out where she stands on important issues, like NSA spying and the Patriot Act.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We shall have to see what she say about it. I voted for her three times and I hope to vote for her again.
But as I said before I can support Warren in the general as well.
Time will tell what will happen here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But no effort made to find out why, if Hillary supports it, that she does.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I am as liberal and left as anyone else who claims that.
And Clinton ain't no freakin Left Lib. She's a Republican. Her and her husband have far more republican traits than democratic ones. They are in it for the money and power - for themselves. And they are both liars. Blatant, unashamed liars.
All the good work forward that President Obama has achieved will be erased if they get into the WH again.
Wake up, America.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Your post completely surprised me.
I support neither one, by the way, except to the extent that they both claim to be Democrats and I would never support the Republican party, so if I have to I hold my nose for the conservadems.
But right now I'm trying to stir up interest in an alternative. Warren, or someone else, open to looking at different people. The prospect of having to support Clinton in 2016 is disgusting to me, not because of any personal hatred (I think she's very intelligent, articulate and capable, and I'd say the same about Obama) but because of policy.
Anyway, I responded to your post because I was shocked by it. I supported Obama over Clinton in the '08 primary, now I think he very cynically positioned himself to the left of her because it was a strategic opportunity, nothing more. I remember him positioning himself against her in the health care debate by saying he didn't think what was wrong with health care is that people needed someone to make them buy it, opposing the mandate, then he implemented the mandate, and a private insurance mandate at that. I see your ACA image so please don't hate me for asking this, I just don't get where you're coming from.
Care to share what makes him so much better than Hillary? Cause I don't see it, at all.
Very much irrelevant, I suppose, a curiosity for me, though. I wonder how many share your view?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)--Both the Clintons have proven over time that lying is a necessary habit for them, even if they don't have to.
Bill lied about his stupid penis for a whole year and Hillary lying about Tuzla - you have to have a loose teabag screw in your head to do that Tuzla thing and think you are going to get away with that.
--Hillary and Lanny Davis were involved in a coup in the Honduras during her SoS term. Davis the weasel snivel was doing business as usual.
--Bill Clinton and George(s) Bush hook up for humanitarian aid during disasters such as Haiti and the Tsuanmi in Asia a few years ago. They take the spotlight as heroes but behind the curtain they indulge in disaster capitalism where helping the most needy takes second place to investments for their rich friends.
There are many more examples. These kinds of dealings are not in the character of Obama. I trust he is a good man with a difficult job and is genuinely trying to improve things for all and move everything forward toward a better patch - but he has such enormous pushback - from the pugs, baggers, and the Clinton mafia.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Interesting. I agree to a point, not so much though. I do find the Clintons to be less than trustworthy, though my view of Obama is much less favorable than yours. No matter, really, we already did that primary, I think we agree moving forward that the Democratic Party has to do better.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she has big Citizen's United money backing her. She is essentially the incumbent.
Remember if you want Christie for president, nominate Al Gore, oops, I mean Clinton.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Will no one rid me of this damned priest...?
Or
There is no one Democratic Presidential candidate pure enough. No, not one.
Or my favorite...
“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They have corporate backing. They have the billions. They expect to roll to victory by destroying potential opponents. But they know their POLICIES are malignant to the 99 percent, so they lie or, preferably, avoid talking about them as much as possible.
They have even gone so far as to try to claim, publicly and outrageously, that they don't OWE the voters full disclosure about the policy positions they plan to take.
We need to nip this crap in the bud. We need to demand that candidates are clear about where they stand on every single important issue. No more of THIS type of garbage we saw during the last election:
Obama campaign REFUSES to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594
The DLC/Third Way worked hard last election to spread a disgusting meme that the people should shut up during election season so as not to disturb the delicate plans of the candidates. This sort of garbage cannot be accepted. Election season is the time for every citizen to participate strongly and vocally, and demand clear answers from candidates. We need to make clear what kind of candidates we want and expect. We are interviewing them for these jobs, and they need to come to us with clear, convincing reasons and evidence as to why we should select them to represent us.
It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072
Now is the time to fire the country up for 2014 AND 2016. Now is the time to be finding and PROMOTING candidates who actually represent the people rather than corporations.
K&R...Superb OP that I hope will remind us to make this challenge every single time we are presented with fluff or empty bids for loyalty, instead of actual reasons to support a candidate.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Excellent post. Though the first "whatever" reply in the linked to topic made me want to bash my head into a brick wall.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)would be a dream come true!
That's more value than any candidate, Dem or Repuke, could ever provide.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't know that I've seen anyone make that argument yet. Not here, anyway.
-Laelth
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)The first First Husband...I've admittedly somewhat intentionally avoided thinking about the ramifications. But now that you bring it up ... the ones that leap immediately to mind are not encouraging.
What specific actions made Bill Clinton a great president? I was under voting age and being suckered into evangelical Christianity at that time, so my recollection is a little vaugue.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)and all I remember was how wonderful the economy and country was in general.
We didn't have to deal with half if the BS we do now and could look forward to the latest Clinton hijink of the month.
And I fully believe Bill will bring us back to those simpler times.
Dead serious.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Hekate
(90,705 posts)That doesn't mean there is not a cogent argument in favor of Hillary Clinton. She's qualified for the job. Way more qualified than a lot of other men and women out there. You don't have to like that. However, the voters will be the ones to decide, right?
You certainly got a lot of a attention for your gripe, I have to say. Almost 550 posts is not too shabby a response.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And they can claim all the things you say they can't. You're just calling them out, not making any argument against Hillary.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)1. She has extensive experience in diplomacy, having been one of the most active SecStates since Acheson, and furthermore she has extensive contacts overseas from her time as Senator and FLOTUS.
2. She has significant executive and administrative experience, having headed what is arguably the most complicated civilian department in the government, and certainly the most widespread department geographically.
3. Being a Senator was once thought to be a magic ticket that makes the Senate work well with you; Obama's experience belies that, but that may be sui generis and it would go back to being true in her case.
4. She's a known quantity; literally everything that conceivably could be dragged out against her has been known for 20 years now.
5. She's smart and tough
Now, I glossed the title as "outside of DU" because here, what seems to matter to most people is how much "fight" or whatever a politician has, as if the problem with Obama's platform is that he just doesn't want it badly enough. I agree there's not really an argument that can answer that. She'll be centrist -- just like Sanders or Warren would be if they were President -- because the amount of actual change you can make over a short period of time is pretty small. The arguments I'm making are that she could:
1. Stand a good chance of beating the Republican nominee, and
2. Competently govern and push the government as far left as its inertia allows (which isn't very far, which is why "how liberal" someone is doesn't matter)
I know this idea pisses people off, but in a lot of ways, all that really matters about a politician is the letter after his or her name, because they appoint the 1700 or so political appointees who actually make the government operate where the rubber hits the road, and make judicial appointments. "How liberal" a Democratic candidate is doesn't really change what will actually happen that much, particularly in a divided government.
