I support Hillary because she can bring change to our country

[Harmony Blue]

President Obama stabilized the country but it should be Hillary Clinton to become the catalyst of change in our country.

[LawDeeDah]

1. Hillary does love change.

The kind she gets from the likes of Goldman Sachs that jingles in her big pockets.

[RoverSuswade]

2. And?

[RiverLover]

13. Yep, Wall Street LOVE$ her. Citigroup: "I think Hillary would be a great president."

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. 85% of Democrats love her....Left Leaning Independents not so much!

[Ken Burch]

158. Not everyone who opposes HRC is a "Left-Leaning Independent"

And again, why do you always use the ugly tactic of questioning people's party loyalty?

In any case, you can't have a progressive administration by nominating the least-progressive and most pro-war candidate we could possibly choose.

[Ken Burch]

166. Actually, that poll just said 85% wanted to see her run...not that they "loved her". n/t.

[karynnj]

233. 85% agreed that she should run - that will include many who do not "love" her

and a few with misgivings. Speaking for myself, if I were polled, I would have said "yes" to her running. It would be ridiculous to say no to anyone running who has a chance to become the nominee and even President. I certainly would NOT say that means that love her - or even that given a good challenger, I would back her in the primary.

Hillary Clinton's numbers in that poll are excellent. They do not need to be misinterpreted or exaggerated.

[cloudbase]

46. No, no!

That's soft money. The kind you can fold up. Not that jingly stuff.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Compassionate Corporatism?

[mmonk]

4. What changes?

Sorry to put you on the spot.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. You beat me to that question monk...

Frankly, I don't see any change. I see someone who acted safely in the Senate after her education as first lady at the WH. Everything she's said has given me absolutely no hope for any change…

Hell, I'm still waiting for change we can believe in in the last two years of THIS administration. Where's those comfortable shoes main street wears… I swear I put them somewhere here…

[mmonk]

25. Agreed. Change must mean something

else like nuance or trimming around the edges.

[pa28]

134. Change the curtains in the oval office.

And other assorted window dressing.

[Autumn]

5. What do you think she will change? I see income inequality as the number 1 threat

to our country. What do YOU think Hillary will do to change that? Convince me to vote for her.

[GummyBearz]

276. She might start charging less for her speeches

hahaha, just kidding

[TheNutcracker]

6. Be careful what you ask for. What kind of changes? Bad ones? Like ending Glass Steagall? NAFTA?

I know that was Bill, but if you think they are THAT different, then you are naïve.

[ND-Dem]

151. she'll double down on bill's welfare 'reform' and end social security.

[hrmjustin]

7. I think she will do just fine if elected and will be more to the left then some here think.

[earthside]

17. Don't question.

Have faith and trust, uh.

For one, I am tired of this line from the corporate Democratic party establishment that we must not force our top candidates to stray too far into populist or progressive areas because America is too conservative.

[hrmjustin]

20. And where in my post did I say don't question?

[BlueCaliDem]

22. *Mic drop* eom

[procon]

30. How so?

Speculation aside, we have only her past record to go by. To the right, she might have appeared like a radical leftist back days when her pantsuits were considered gauche, and conservative men felt emasculated by a strong, outspoken woman, but her positions on many key issues that are important to liberals don't coincide with that well-crafted public image.

I expect that she will indeed tapdance a bit more to the left while primary campaigning, but based on her well publicized views, if elected there will be no marked seachange in her solidly right of center stance.

[hrmjustin]

42. I think she understands where the party is.

I think she will defend the average American.

[merrily]

51. And the average American understands where she's been all her life.

Anyone who goes more for her most recent campaign rhetoric than for her entire life, including being a founding member of the DLC and urging her fellow Senators to support Bush re: Iraq deserves her, but no one else does.

[hrmjustin]

53. And according to todays polls they want her to be president.

[merrily]

56. Also according to 2007 polls. According to 2011 polls, even 2012, Obama could not beat

a generic Republican or any named Republican, including Romney.

Besides, who have the party and its spokespersons been touting for 2016 for the past 8 years?

[hrmjustin]

60. i think the people of our party want to win and want to go with a winner.

Thats Hillary!

[merrily]

64. Hillary is a winner? She had a 30 point lead in 2008 and blew it. Just like Martha Coakley.*

Hillary's polls were also sky high when she started her book tour and, the longer her tour went on, the lower her approval numbers went. Seems as though the more people get of Hillary, they less they like her.

She will never beat Jeb and it will be too close for comfort if Romney is their nominee again (which I doubt).

Saying she is is inevitable and/or a winner does not make it so and is in direct contradiction with reality.

*Martha Coakley sure isn't known as a winner in Massachusetts, where she lost to both Scott Brown and Charlie Baker after starting out front, especially against Brown. However, to be fair to Martha, she did not get anywhere near the money and support Hillary got in 2008 and is getting now.

[hrmjustin]

70. 2016 is not 2008.

The people of our party know she is the one likely to be our best chance in 2016.

[merrily]

71. But Hillary is still Hillary. (Her book tour was not in 2008, either.)

And her past lack of success is the best predictor of her future performance that is available to us, aside from imaginary stuff.

And, she may well even lose a significant sector of the African American vote, thanks to the kind of campaign she ran against Obama.

This is folly for the Party, and not only for 2016 alone.

[hrmjustin]

75. And the public wants her as president.

[merrily]

77. You have now gone in complete circle. That says quite a lot.

[hrmjustin]

78. Well if my responses bother you or bore you i am sorry.

[merrily]

80. No, you are not. But my comment about your going full circle had nothing to do with

my feelings about your posts. Your bringing a discussion about the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee down to that level, like your going full circle, says a lot about the strength (or lack thereof) of your points about the likelihood of Hillary's ever being President.

[hrmjustin]

81. None of our possible candidates have shown that they can win imo.

I think she can do it.

[merrily]

82. None of our possible candidates but Hillary have proven they can lose, either.

They've had nothing but discouragement. She's had every boost imaginable. Still, they are not proven losers. She is.

[hrmjustin]

83. Well if they want to beat her they need to prove themselves.

Hillsry has also proven she can win. the public wants her and are ready for her.

[merrily]

87. 3rd time resting your argument on meaningless poll results.

Proven meaningless by the primary of 2008.

Hillsry has also proven she can win

Her husband had just finished 8 years in office and she had no political record of her own then. And winning a senate seat is very different from winning the Presidential. Just ask Kerry--and he won his Senate seat on his own, and far more than once. It's very different from even winning a Presidential nomination. Just ask Hillary.


If the last word means that much to you, take it. You clearly have nothing but meaningless poll results to rely on and I don't need to give you an opportunity to refer to them them a fourth time. I'll just leave you with this:

After she ran a racially tinged primary campaign against the first African American who had a realistic chance at the nomination, plus her support of her husband's policies, plus her support of the Iraq invasion, plus her corporate shilling, making her the Democratic nominee WILL damage the Party for a long time and she won't defeat someone like Jeb anyway. Live with that.

[hrmjustin]

90. I do live with the war results. I buried a cousin.

You can saywhatever you want about her but the train is leaving the station.

[merrily]

93. I didn't tell you (or anyone) to live with the war results and you know it.

The whole world has no choice but to live with the results of the Iraq invasion and you are not the only one who had to bury someone. However, you know perfectly well that is not what my post said. What a way to use a tragedy!

As far as your train, it may well run over the Democratic Party, which was my point.

[hrmjustin]

94. Use a tragedy! Goodnight and goodbye!

[hrmjustin]

100. You think it is funny?

[DonCoquixote]

108. well

the reason they might bother or bore is because they are devoid of facts or even examples. Not even so much as a quote that shows a sign of her leaning leftward is offered, but we are supposed to take it on faith that she will. One fact is clear, if she runs the 2016 campaign the way she ran her 2008 campaign, we are dead, because that campaign was the classic Tortoise vs, Hare race where her own arrogance made her lose.

[hrmjustin]

109. I am sorry I don't have your wit or links.

You just get opinion with me and if you don't like it you don't have to read it.

[DonCoquixote]

111. and indeed

I do not have to read it, namely because there is so little to read. But you are the one saying Hillary is injectable before we even have the pretense of a primary, you know, the place where she FAILED last time.

[hrmjustin]

113. She tied the popular vote in the primary so she was no failure.

Goodnight.

[merrily]

121. The popular vote is irrelevant in the Presidential, both the primary and the general. No partial

credit either. Either you win or you lose; and losing is a failure. Also, in the Dem primary, super delegate votes count and she lost massively there.

Moreover, she ran out that primary after she had zero chance of winning, wasting the time and money of Obama and giving McCain a huge head start. So, massive, unprecedented selfish fail, as well as more conventional primary fail.

[hrmjustin]

122. I am sorry but I am not going to continue with you anymore.

Goodnight.

[merrily]

125. Fine with me. That doesn't mean I can't post to point out fallacies in your posts, though.

[hrmjustin]

127. You can do what you like, it is a free country.

[merrily]

128. Yes, I know. Hence, my pointing out the fallacies in your prior post.

Don't need anyone's permission to do that. I simply told you so that you not keep feeling some need to keep replying to me to tell me you were not going to reply to me.

[hrmjustin]

129. lol.

[merrily]

130. I do heartily applaud your keeping your sense of humor after your claim was refuted so soundly.

[hrmjustin]

131. Refuted i think not. All you are interested in doing is trashing Hillary and I want no part of it.

[merrily]

132. Then you don't know when you've been refuted or know the difference between facts and trashing.

She did fail in 2008, in the popular vote, in the primary equivalent of the electoral vote and in the super delegate vote, all of which failures were spectacular considering all that she had on her side going into that primary,

All of the above is fact. And it does thoroughly refute your claim that she tied and therefore did not fail.

If you think I have any personal reason to "trash" any politician, you're dreaming.

[hrmjustin]

133. I may not be the brightest bulb here but i can see what you are doing.

Continue if you like but i have grown tired off hatred for Hillary.

[merrily]

136. Refusing to see something for what it is doesn't mean you are not bright.

Please stop posting to me just to tell me you are not going to post to me, though. I think this makes six or seven times.

[Marr]

189. I think they get a bonus if they're the last poster in an exchange like this.

I can't figure any other reason. I've seen this technique of making absolutely empty posts to get the last word about a thousand times now.

[merrily]

191. Some times, I keep going as long as they do, just to see how long they last.

They usually do outlast me, though. Then again, I don't get anything for posting. (Would that I did!)


I don't know for certain who is a paid poster and who is not, but I did read an ad online only this week seeking posters somewhere in Canada that provided for extra money for starting what we might call a shitstorm or a flame war, resulting in many posts. Like for example, oh, I don't know, the one the OP of this thread started.

To be precise, I was reading a blog in which the blogger purported to be posting a screen cap of an actual ad that had been taken down.

Was the blogger honest and accurate? Who knows? For all I know, it was this guy:

[hrmjustin]

198. That is low. implying I am a paid poster is low.

That is exactly what you did.

[merrily]

202. Did no such thing. I specifically said I didn't know who was or was not a paid poster.

If anyone has a legitimate beef about the content my post, it would be the OP. And if anything is low, it's your calling me low.

Finally, unless your name is "they", I don't know why you assumed I was referring to you.

[hrmjustin]

204. That bull! You might not have used my name but you did imply it.

That is low. Just because someone does not see things like you does not mean you should insult them like that.

I don't get paid tp post. I don't have a pot to piss in.

[merrily]

208. You're wrong and fact free.

However, I am not going to bend over backwards because of your unfounded accusations. Think what you want.

[hrmjustin]

211. You can try to talk yourself out of it but you still did it.

You should remember that posters have feelings when you insult them.

[merrily]

213. Yes, you should know what I mean much better than I do.

As far as remembering other posters have feelings, take your own advice. You are now on Day 2 of implying I am saying things other than what I am saying and doing things other than what I am doing. So, playing victim because YOU are now imagining that a post of mine in which I used the OP of this thread as an example referred to you is not going to fly.


Again, you're wrong, but if you insist on believing I meant you anyway, enjoy yourself. I am not going to respond to you again about your wrong conclusions on that score.

[hrmjustin]

214. You did what you did and it was clear. Goodbye!

[hrmjustin]

197. Thats ridiculous. your friend responded to me.

[merrily]

203. "Your friend." LOL.

And he or she is not talking about a response, but about people who reply endlessly without adding a thing of substance.

[hrmjustin]

205. Well then try adding then.

[merrily]

209. um....

[karynnj]

234. Never before spring 2008, when Hillary was not doing as well in the primaries as she should have,

did ANYONE speak or write of the "popular vote" -- the "national popular vote" in the primaries. The reason is it MAKES NO SENSE. Many states legally chose their electors by caucuses. In the Hillary Clinton national primary vote nonsense - there were a few states that were completely not included because there were no official numbers that could be called "popular votes".

This is insane - states that legally chose to have caucuses were underrepresented or not represented at all - while places like Puerto Rico were wildly overweighted.

Hillary's team knew the rules going in. When they saw on Super Tuesday that rather than being able to declare HRC the de facto nominee that they were actually in trouble, two devious themes raised their ugly heads. The national popular vote and the idea that the superdelegates need not back the candidate who got the most regular delegates.

Clinton is extremely likely to win in 2016. There is no need to rewrite 2008 and many reasons not to do so. For those of us who backed Obama, many of these themes were and are resented as they had the secondary effect of causing many HRC supporters to feel cheated and to view Obama wining the nomination as not earned. This after Obama won in spite of all the advantages that HRC had going into the race.

I really don't get why all that should resurface now - when HRC will need the entire Democratic party.

[hrmjustin]

235. Most hillary supporter took the loss well.

There was never a doubt in my mind that Obama won fair and square.

[karynnj]

237. I agree - and it was a tough loss especially as it was close

I am speaking more of the professionals on HRC's team - many of whom did not give up until way after the last primary - almost up to the convention.

[hrmjustin]

238. Well they ended up looking a bit ridiculous.

[merrily]

137. DUers who admit to knowing what goes on at the DNC level and DUers

whom I personally suspect of having more than typical incentive to support Hillary have been posting for months that her 2016 campaign, if she runs (LOL) will indeed be different from her 2008 campaign.

I have less than no reason to doubt them. For one thing, "the 99%" was not even part of the common vernacular in 2008, which was pre-OWS. However, should new campaign rhetoric, based on her obvious desire to be President, outweigh what she has said and done all her life?

Please see also Reply 116 on this thread. Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026105656#post116 (hope it works).

[StevieM]

149. She started with a lead of about 15 points and then built it up. At its height it was averaging 25

points. It was not the lead that Gore, Bush or Dole had at the height of their races.

A closing of the race is expected and normal. And she never had a huge lead in Iowa. If she lost Iowa, always a strong possibility, that was inevitably going to reshuffle the race.

Her comeback in New Hampshire was stunningly impressive. Obama had momentum like I had never seen before. And Hillary was savaged by the media during the interlude between Iowa and New Hampshire. And she only had 5 days to recover, as opposed to the usual 8 days. It was a gutsy victory.

[merrily]

150. "Hillary holds 30 point lead."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/12/hillary-holds-30point-lea_n_76433.html

Whether she built it up or started out of the box with a solid 15 point lead, she had a 30 point lead relatively early on and blew it, along with every other early advantage she had.

In the context of the entire discussion that I was having, the point is, polls this early don't predict a primary outcome reliably, let alone a general's outcome. So, saying polls today show people want her as President doesn't mean a thing. And she is fully capable of blowing an election.

At to New Hampshire in particular, I remember Hillary almost breaking down (or seeming to) in New Hampshire in response to a question about how she, as a woman could possibly manage to campaign and do everything else. (In a very short time, I think people might have realized that Hillary was not exactly doing every thing else the average American woman has to do every day, plus campaigning, but that is another story.)

At the time of the NH primary, pundits were saying/speculating that question and Hillary's response may have accounted for her NH win, even though she had been predicted to lose that one. I don't know if it did or not, but one purple state primary upset does not a President make. Her unexpected NH victory against Obama was nowhere near as spectacular or, in my mind, as significant, as her loss of the entire primary.

[StevieM]

168. That was one poll. Her average lead, at its height, was more like 25 points. And I don't think she

got to that level until the summer, possibly the late summer. There was no particular reason why Obama or Edwards couldn't have passed her early, she just ran a better campaign then they did at that point in the election. Gore, Bush and Dole all started out with huge leads and gradually slipped. What made Hillary's decline such a surprise was that she started out by increasing her performance with the voters.

I personally felt that Hillary's win in New Hampshire was impressive and spoke to the overall strength of her campaign over the previous year.

You seem to be saying--and perhaps I am mistaken in this interpretation--that Hillary loosing the 2008 Primary disqualifies her from being considered a good enough candidate to be trusted with the nomination in any future general election. I disagree. In any event, that argument, true or not, won't be persuasive to a significant number of Democratic voters. People generally don't cast their votes based on that line of thinking.

I don't think it is fair to say Hillary can't beat Jeb Bush. There are lot of factors that will go into deciding the election. In the end, it will be decided by how good a campaign she runs, how good a campaign the Republican candidate runs, and where Barack Obama's approval rating stands at the time of the election.

[merrily]

169. Is blowing a lead of 25, average, really very different from blowing a lead that got as high as 30?

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Besides, I never said she blew a lead that averaged 30. I said she blew a lead of 30. She did. After you pointed out the average the first time, I replied, "Whether she built it up or started out of the box with a solid 15 point lead, she had a 30 point lead relatively early on and blew it, along with every other early advantage she had." Also a correct statement.

At some point, she probably polled even lower than 15. Would averaging 30 and 0 and saying she averaged only 15 improve the reality? For me, the fact that she worked it up to 30 by March and blew it anyway only supports my position. Apparently you see it differently.

Her husband was President for 8 years, leaving office with a very high approval rating, staff, a donor list that would knock anyone's eyes out and on and on. No other candidate in history had any of that that, plus a 30 point lead. And she still blew it.

You seem to be saying--and perhaps I am mistaken in this interpretation--that Hillary loosing the 2008 Primary disqualifies her from being considered a good enough candidate to be trusted with the nomination in any future general election.

Nope. Never said that. I responded to a poster who was insisting that polls show that America wants Hillary as President, that she is our best hope of winning the general, etc. I thought the words I used to reply to that poster were very clear to anyone who reads the subthread. If I was vague or ambiguous without realizing it, please point to the specific language that is unclear to you and I will do my best to clarify, but I never said Hillary disqualified herself from being the nominee, nor would I ever say such a thing. That is not how Presidential hopefuls disqualify themselves or get disqualified.

I don't think it is fair to say Hillary can't beat Jeb Bush

My posts on this thread and others detail some of the reasons why I think her losing is likely. No clue why stating my opinion about a future election on a political message board is unfair. It's certainly no more unfair than other posters claiming she will definitely win and giving no reasons to support their prediction.

[karynnj]

236. To add to your comments, which I agree with, she had the Shaheen machine behind her

Senator Shaheen and her husband were seen as having a very strong GOTV opperation in the Manchester area. Hillary was about 20 points ahead in NH BEFORE Iowa and then, in the wake of Obama's victory, he polled ahead in a few polls. In general, only by a few points - which was STILL very noteworthy because he had been down 20.

In addition to HRC's cry, Obama also was hit by the debate where Edwards opted to go after HRC - making it the two of them against HRC. While Edwards was the more aggressive, a laconic response to the question of whether HRC was "nice enough" was spun as Obama being rude to Clinton.

As it was HRC won NH by a very narrow margin. It could well have been a few people returning to her after the debate and the crying and an excellent GOTV effort. (Not to mention, Obama still got the same number of NH delegates as the % was close. )

[merrily]

246. Thanks. I had forgotten "You're nice enough" was pre NH vote. Sexism

was the accusation hurled by the pro-Hillary owner of the board I was posting on then.

She (the board owner) seemed to get more and more unhinged during the primary and ended up turning Republican and even embracing Bush, whom she'd been attacking--and very knowledgeably and skillfully, I might add--for eight years. Unhinged or not, How anyone could have done that 180 is beyond me.

But, I digress. No matter what happened in New Hampshire, it was still only one primary and she lost the whole ball of wax, despite a large lead (however one wants to parse it) and advantages unprecedented in US history. For example, even Dimson was not First Lady for 16 years and the US First Lady usually tends to make the most loved list, regardless of Party, which, IIRC, I believe Hillary did, You cannot buy that kind of name recognition and goodwill at any price, but if any candidate had the money to buy it in 2008, it was Hillary, who did not need to buy it anyway.

Yet, she lost. So, polls don't impress me much, especially polls this far out. Nor do all the same "insider" assertions of inevitability that I heard about Hillary in 2007-08.

[Marr]

187. If that poll wasn't bullshit, she'd be president *now*.

Do you know how utterly unappealing you have to be to the US electorate to have an enormous campaign war chest and still get spanked by an unknown black guy named Barack Hussein Obama? And it's not like she didn't try to exploit it, either-- with that not-always-so-subtley-racist campaign she ran.

She's got massive amounts of Wall Street money and unparalleled connections to the party establishment, but she doesn't have a fucking chance in a national election. Not a fucking chance.

[hrmjustin]

201. You are entitled to that belief but the party does not share it.

[merrily]

210. You speak for the party now?

[hrmjustin]

212. The polling is clear that the psrty wants her.

[merrily]

217. Like 2008? No, it isn't clear, per all the posts about that on this thread from last night.

[hrmjustin]

219. I thought you said you were not going to respond to me.

[merrily]

220. Nope. That was you last night. 5 times, IIRC. I said I was not going to

respond to further about your imaginary conclusion that I accused you of being a paid poster in my post to Marr.

I never said I would stop pointing out fallacies in your posts about Hillary. Read my post again and see what it actually says.

[hrmjustin]

222. Well i can't say it has been a pleasure but it has been informative.

[merrily]

224. Doubt that it's been informative. Could have been.

[hrmjustin]

225. Oh it was.

[Marr]

253. "The party"?

Is that what you call your stuffed animals? Because I don't think you-- or anyone else-- can claim to speak for the whole Democratic party.

And before you do it, since you already alluded to it, no, you can't cite *this poll* as proof that that *this poll* isn't bullshit. That's like citing the Bible's claim to be the word of god as proof that it's right about pork.

[hrmjustin]

254. My stuffed animals are actually alive. 5 cats.

I never said the polls were gospel.

[Marr]

255. Okay. /nt

[ND-Dem]

152. as left as bill. iow, not so much from the middle class goldwater girl.

[Ken Burch]

160. If she silently backed all of Bill's right-wing shit then, she can't be progressive now. n/t.

[merrily]

175. She'll say whatever she thinks she needs to say to get elected but her latest campaign rhetoric,

whatever it may turn out to be, should not be given more weight than her lifetime before 2014. Please see Reply 116 for a few highlights.


“What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson

[hrmjustin]

199. She was first lady. The first lady does not oppose their husbands policies publicly.

[merrily]

206. She was not First Lady after 2000. If she still can't oppose his policies publicly,

that IS a massive concern about her being in the Oval Office.

[Ken Burch]

270. She hasn't even questioned them retroactively.

She could have at least admitted it was an unforgiveable betrayal to sign the welfare "reform" bill(a piece of legislation we should refer to as the Kill The Poor Act)rather than just letting them override his veto, as Truman did with Taft-Hartley.

Eighteen years of saying nothing at all about that decision proves she can't care about the poor.

And her silence on Glass-Steagall repeal proves she can't ever fight against corporate domination of life.

[Fearless]

8. Yeah right.

I for one do not welcome our new corporate overlords.

[leveymg]

9. One likely change under HRC is the US will go boots in first into the Middle East.

Will that change make you happy?

[Motown_Johnny]

10. Back to war? Even more "Free Trade"? Exactly what change do you expect?

If you can't provide specifics then maybe you should rethink your unquestioning support.

[merrily]

218. Wait. "Back to war?" We stopped?

[tridim]

11. Change...

back to a lite version of the Bush Doctrine.

No, thank you.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. Would you rather have the real thing, then? Jebbie Bush is running.

I see NO other Democrats strong enough to beat Mittney or Jebbie Bush. NONE. But if you have a liberal candidate who can, please feel free to share that person's name with us. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.

[djean111]

26. Then, at least, run on that - "Not as bad as Jeb" - and don't insult us with the hopey changey

stuff again.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Answer the question...would you rather have a Jebbie Bush then?

Anyone with more than half a working brain understands that Hillary Clinton would be a thousand times better than any Republican and she will beat ANY Republican. Democratic polls show that she crushes Jebbie Bush and steps on Mitt Romney - the latter being the top candidate GOPers want for president.

Also, judging by the candidates her husband has put forward - Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer - she'll pick the perfect liberal candidates when Bader-Ginsberg, Scalia, and Kennedy leave (or keel over in their seats) in the next eight years. SoS Clinton also has enormous clout with congressional Democrats, and she'll need Congress to get anything through, remember?

Is SoS Clinton perfect? No. But who is in this imperfect world?

On the other hand, she'll continue President Obama's policies while any Republican will try to dismantle it. Alsol, Senator Warren, the darling of the Left, has put her support behind SoS Clinton for president - many, many times. Do you question her integrity then?

And as an FYI - just in case you forgot or wasn't paying attention in these past six years - President Obama has delivered on that "hopey, changey" thing. Had you been paying attention, you'd know that.

I swear, sometimes some DUers act and post like Republicans with Republican arguments and all.

[djean111]

35. You are asking that question as if it is a lock that Jeb or Hillary will be my only choices.

Too early for that pledge thing, jumping the gun.
I cannot imagine a more depressing Dem candidate than Hillary. Oh, yeah, she will continue things like - the TPP. She loves NAFTA, Wall Street, and the banks. I am supposed to look forward to that?

[BlueCaliDem]

39. Sorry to have to tell you, but at this point, those ARE our only choices.

Better not to undercut a strong Dem just because that candidate isn't perfect in our eyes. By the way, Mittney polls stronger than Jebbie.

Also, because of "they're the same" b.s. in 2000 (and what's been revived for 2016), and what had been widely propagated - even by Fox "News" at the time - we got Bush Jr., and with him we got Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, and with them came Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Together, those have conspired to give Republicans more power in our House and Senate, forcing Dems now to coddle Wall Street for cash or they'll have an uphill battle to even be seen.

So I'll ask you what I've asked tridim...if you have a stronger, more liberal candidate for president than SoS Clinton who doesn't need Wall Street cash, who can negotiate with establishment Dems in Congress to stop TPP, overturn NAFTA, and keep and strengthen Dodd-Frank, put that name forward for peer review. Otherwise, let's stop doing the GOP's job by undercutting our strongest Democratic candidate for president to date.

As for the banks - and I believe you're referring to the bank bailouts under Bush but what became bank LOANS under President Obama - those loans netted the American taxpayer $53.8 BILLION dollars as reported on January 12, 2015 through Propublica who tracks this, thanks to President Obama. He changed the bank bail outs that Bush had wanted into U.S. loans.

There is definitely a difference between supporting and electing a Democratic president as opposed to a Republican just by the fact that, had McCain been president, do you believe he would have turned those bank bail out billions into Treasury loans that banks had to pay back? I really don't think so.

[merrily]

164. Are you saying that the TARP legislation was re-written after Obama took office?

[BlueCaliDem]

247. Since the Treasury falls under the Executive Branch, they have flexibility how to oversee it.

On April 19, 2009, the Obama Administration outlined the conversion of Banks Bailouts to Equity Share. The entire $700 BN wasn't used by then. There was still $350 bn. With a Democratic Congress they were able to change how TARP was used.

[merrily]

248. "With a Democratic Congress they were able to change how TARP was used." Again, are you saying that

the TARP legislation that the Democratic Congress passed in 2008 was re-written after Obama took office? I'm still not clear.

At first, I thought you were saying that the original legislation was flexible enough for the Executive to change it from a bailout to a loan. But then, you brought in Congress in again.

he entire $700 BN wasn't used by then. There was still $350 bn.

Is that a reference to Tarp I and Tarp II? If so, both portions had been released during the Bush Administration, the first immediately and the second Bush very cagily said he would not release unless then President Elect Obama asked him you, which Obama then did. At the time, TARP II was released, the entire amount was being administered by Bush and Paulson.

I am going to need to look into this further because converting a bailout to a loan or equity is no mere administrative call. Something in the legislation had to allow it.

[BlueCaliDem]

250. I'm not as interested in TARP or how it changed when Obama took office.

So I can't give you a detailed timeline how that came to be.

I only know that there've been numerous bills passed into law in those first few months after Obama entered the WH regarding the disbursement of TARP. Also, since Democrats had majorities in both chambers of Congress and Republicans didn't dare filibuster or stop any bills that would tweak/change how TARP is disbursed for fear of backlash from their angry supporters, it appears that TARP had been changed by the Obama Admin and Democrats. You'll have to do an in-depth research of this yourself. All I know is that Propublica is reporting that the U.S. Treasury has netted $53.8 billion - and they wouldn't do this if it weren't true because they're NO friends to the Obama Administration.

[merrily]

252. Thanks. I am curious, so, as I said, I will look into it more. As far as how much the Treasury made

on the deal I know that views on that vary because, at the time I did try to keep up with that. One report would say one thing and the next report would debunk that, then another report would debunk the second report and so on. (And none of these reports or debunkers were from any source like fox or freep.)

I felt it impossible to sort through and know who was really "on the money," so speak and who wasn't.

Candidly, I am not at all sure about numerous bills about TARP passing after Obama took office, either.

Today is not the day I will do further research, but I will do it some day.

[BlueCaliDem]

258. Wikipedia has a detailed timeline (I can't vouch for its accuracy) so you might want to start there.

Troubled Asset Relief Program

One of the laws that reduced the TARP amount from $700BN to $475 BN was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by then President Obama on July 21, 2010 was Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That was one change in the TARP law.

[merrily]

262. Yes, of course I know about and remember Dodd Frank, but that is not numerous bills.

And the regulations under that did not get done for a long time. Even The Daily Show did a segment on that, John Oliver as "correspondent, with Jon Stewart hosting, IIRC.

Again, I will look into it further, just not today.

[BlueCaliDem]

266. Okay. Now it feels as if you're nitpicking. I've given you links to a couple of sites

and you still appear to want to denigrate and dismiss it for whatever reasons you might have. Anyhoo...I'm done with this conversation because it doesn't appear to go anywhere, and it's become tiresome.

Moving on.

[merrily]

267. Sorry you feel that way. I am not dismissing, just saying I am not ready to look into it today and

therefore am not ready to get into the weeds on substance. And not being ready to look into it further today, which I said a few times, includes not being ready to look into your links either. So, I did not denigrate them. I did not even look at them. Because I am not ready to look further today, I 'm more than fine with not discussing it further today.

[merrily]

263. P.S. yes, I remembered correctly, "I am just a Bill," LOL!

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=21060

[merrily]

167. P.S. At this point we have no idea what our choices will be.

As best I can tell, the Party (using the term loosely, I admit) has been trying for a few years to convince us that Hillary is our only option, but not every one is buying.

At this point, Warren says she won't run. Sanders says he wants to, but only if he gets the money and support that will indicate he can win. And those are the most definitive statements we have so far. And maybe that is because the Party (using the term loosely, I admit) has been trying for a few years to convince us that Hillary is our only option.

Guess we'll know when the filing deadline passes.

[merrily]

176. Hillary is not the only Democrat in America.

[BlueCaliDem]

257. Never claimed she was. But she IS the strongest, according to all the polls.

Also, the winning team that got President Obama to win both from the Clinton juggernaut as well as the Republican mega-machine has now moved over to the supporting team for SoS Clinton for president. Why would they do that if they didn't believe in her? President Obama, too, will support her, and whoever he supports will win the general because the Black and Latino community LOVE him and trust him, and without their support, there's no way we can win the presidency in 2016.

Look, if someone as progressive as Elizabath Warren or a younger version of Bernie Sanders can raise the funds as good as the Clintons, I will HAPPILY vote for them. My main goal is to get a Democrat in the White House and to get that Democrat a Democratic Senate. Those are my short-term goals for this election. I don't want another Republican seating his ass in the White House when Bader-Ginsberg is on the verge of retiring and the chances of Scalia and Kennedy either keeling over in their seats or retiring has become a realistic possibility.

[merrily]

260. The polls don't mean much.

Why would they do that if they didn't believe in her?

It's been very obvious to me for more than two years that the PTB of the Party want her to be the nominee. For over two years, there has been active discouragement of a primary challenge to Hillary. Why is a great question and some us of have our theories, but that is irrelevant.

In any event, they have been doing everything they possibly can to make sure she is the nominee. That doesn't mean it will happen and I hope like anything it won't.

President Obama, too, will support her, and whoever he supports will win the general because the Black and Latino community LOVE him and trust him, and without their support, there's no way we can win the presidency in 2016.

Every part of the base is going to be needed, including liberals and African Americans and Hispanics. Because of the kind of campaign Hillary ran against Obama in 2008, Hillary turned off a lot of Obama supporters on racial grounds, including me. I thought it was offensive as hell. Obama's support of her might change their minds or it might not. Also, I believe that various things will cause long term damage to the Party if she is the nominee, including the appearance of an anointing.

Presumably all of us want a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Senate. Which are two more reasons I oppose Hillary. I don't think she can win the general and, even if she does, I don't think she'll have coattails.

But, back to my original point. Hillary is not the only Democrat in America. By the same token, neither are Warren and Sanders AND Hillary the only possible Democratic nominees. With a population of 350 million, give or take, my really rough cut is that, at the very minimum, 50 million of them might be adult Democrats over 35 or whatever the Constitutional age requirement is. Saying those three are the universe of potential viable candidates can't be right.

[BlueCaliDem]

264. At this point, the polls are telling a-political American voters a great deal.

And that's what matters.

The vast majority of Americans don't care about politics, not like you and I and other DUers here. The vast majority only listen with half an ear and what they're hearing is that SoS Clinton is the strongest. President Obama seems to approve of her as a possible candidate, and who he chooses, will win.

Obama won his re-election having LOST a great deal of voters who claim to be "his base". In fact, he lost the White vote to Mitt Romney in 2012, lost a lot of student votes, and yet with the fast-growing Latino community and energized Black community, he still won with 51% of the vote in a struggling economy and after having received the least positive coverage only second to Newt Gingrich (according to Pew). The importance of the minority vote can NOT be dismissed.

I don't see another Barack Obama anywhere, though. I don't see any Democrat with the qualifications that Barack Obama had back then when he defeated then Senator Clinton. None. But who knows? One might pop out of nowhere and surprise us, but that's just wishful thinking at this point.

[ND-Dem]

155. +100. it's all of a piece anyway: each lousy prez sets up the ground for the next one to

continue the downward slide.

[LondonReign2]

27. Yes, that is exactly what those of us to the left of Corporate Hillary want -- Jeb

You are so clever to see through us.

[merrily]

101. No, we don't want him. But IMO, Hillary can't beat him. And, IMO, even

making her the nominee her is likely to further weaken the Party considerably, and not just for this go round. (Please see Reply 87). (As will either no primary or a dog and pony show primary.) And, it has seemed to me for several years now that the PTB of the Party are hell bent on ensuring that she is the nominee, and preferably unchallenged by any primary candidates. However, in light of the outcry about a coronation, we may get a primary of sorts. I am not hopeful about a strong one, though.

[Bettie]

29. I'll vote for her

but it will be with eyes wide open, hoping for the best, but ready for more of the same.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. "More of the same" would depend on what Congress we help get her in 2016 should she win the nom.

Although the president can do a lot without Congress- and there's no mistaking that SoS Clinton carries enormous clout with Congressional Dems, even more than Obama ever has - the president can only make real change with a Congress willing to work with her/him.

I'll most likely have to vote for her holding my nose, though, just as I had to do when I voted for Dianne Feinstein. I'd rather have another candidate just as strong as SoS Clinton, who can crush Jebbie Bush and Mittney, but I don't see one yet. For now, she has my support.

[Bettie]

45. The problem with congress

Is that gerrymandering plus senate rules will have us in an eternal state of gridlock.

The house has been arranged to have solid a Republican majority for the foreseeable future.

The Senate...well, any senator can choose to hold up just about any piece of legislation on a whim, though only one side seems to use that power with any frequency.

I'll work to get Dems elected, make no mistake, but honestly, I have little hope of my kids having even a decent life in this country.

[merrily]

181. And a Dem President is the head of the Dem Party. The meme that the head of the Party has no sway

over Dems in Congress is a joke. And, if that were actually the case, we may as well put Humpty Dumpty in the Oval Office anyway.

[Bettie]

188. A Dem president can STOP terrible things from happening

But, absent a change in Senate rules and a Dem house, given the current climate, I don't see any progress being made.

Just my opinion. It may change, but right now, I'm pretty disillusioned about our system and its dysfunction.

[merrily]

228. A Dem President leads his party and does have influence over them,

especially when newly elected by an impressive majority.

As a separate matter, having ultimate control of the DNC and great influence within the party is not an inconsequential carrot and stick mechanism if anyone is contemplating running for re-election.

If the President campaigns for you and/or is fine with Bubba campaigning for you that says something. So does the reverse. And then, there are party funds, regular donors, party strategists, etc.

[merrily]

180. Why take a loyalty oath before she even announces, when she is not your favorite?

Few care how hard you have to squeeze the clothespin on your nose when you vote, as long as you vote the way they want.

[Bettie]

190. Oops, normally, I put the words "if she's the nominee" in these statements

For the primaries, if there is a challenger, I will likely vote for someone else.

But, I've been castigated enough times for saying that she's not my chosen candidate that I generally put that in. The assumption by a vocal few seems to be that if you prefer another candidate, that you won't vote for the person you didn't want in the primary in the general, even if they are the nominee.

I had a really bad day yesterday and did not communicate clearly. Sorry.

[merrily]

195. Even with that addition, my post holds.

But, I've been castigated enough times for saying that she's not my chosen candidate that I generally put that in.

Cutting against taking the loyalty oath is what I said in my prior post. Cutting against saying you will not vote for her no matter what are the terms of service and the alert button. So, I simply refuse to say. No reason to.

The assumption by a vocal few seems to be that if you prefer another candidate, that you won't vote for the person you didn't want in the primary in the general, even if they are the nominee.

An assumption or a tactic? I very much doubt that is really an honest assumption.

Nice "meeting" you, btw.

[tridim]

40. Any Democrat can beat Mitt and Jeb.

Mitt is a verified loser and Jeb is a Bush, which is the absolute worst thing a candidate can be.

Your lack of confidence is troubling.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Really? That's not what the latest CBS poll shows among Dems and Indies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026106032

Now, granted, polls are simply snapshots of moments in time, but I haven't seen a poll yet that has any Democrat other than SoS Clinton winning from the top two GOP hopefuls for president.

As I've asked you...put forward a name of a stronger, more liberal candidate than SoS Clinton for peer review; one who can beat the top two favorites the GOP are going to put forward.

It's not my lack of confidence you're seeing, tridim. It's my pragmatism and my desire to see another Democrat in the WH that you're seeing and confusing with a lack of confidence.

[Ken Burch]

165. That poll doesn't show head-to-head results, though.

HRC would naturally do well in a poll like the CBS poll simply because, at this stage, she's more well-known.

[BlueCaliDem]

244. In every single head-to-head polls, SoS Clinton wins from all potetial candidates, both Republican

and Democrat. This latest one shows the appeal all potential candidates have to specific groups, i.e., Dems, Indies, and Repubs. I have yet to see a poll showing she loses in points from any Republican or any other Democrat, including Senator Warren. Maybe there's one out there I haven't seen, but so far, not a single poll shows SoS Clinton losing to anyone.

[merrily]

177. Polls this far out are unreliable.

We all want another Democrat in the white house, just not another neoliberal, aka New Democrat.

[BlueCaliDem]

259. Yes. That's why I wrote that polls are snapshots in time. But we can't deny that each and every poll

that has been taken ever since we've been speculating who will be the next president has shown SoS Clinton at the top by mostly double digits.

Unless and until she bumbles up royally, she is the frontrunner at this point in time. Inevitable? Heck no. But she has the greatest chance so far.

[merrily]

261. Yes, you can rightly deny all polls this far out, or at least not conclude they must be right or

meaningful.

Polls this far out before 2008 were all wrong. Early polls showing Obama losing in 2012 to every single possible Republican, starting with Mr. Generic Republican.

There are reasons why Hillary shows at the top, including that, no one buys here "I haven't decided yet."

Please see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026105656#post260

[merrily]

182. Any Democrat should be able to beat Mitt and Jeb, if he or she really wants to.

[merrily]

54. Hillary will not beat Jeb.

Part of the reason that you don't see other Democrats is that everyone in power or close to those in power has been saying for almost three years that no Dem will challenge Hillary if she runs. In 2007, Obama was not considered strong enough to bet Hillary, let alone a Republican. Guess what.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. IF that's true, we're screwed. eom

[merrily]

59. Only if we keep acting as though Hillary is the only Dem out of maybe 75 million.

[Thinkingabout]

67. Do you have a better candidate in mind?

[merrily]

69. Irrelevant. There are good candidates. Hillary is not one of them.

[Thinkingabout]

76. Sure she is, it us relevent unless you are pulling for a GOP candidate.

[merrily]

84. Bullshit. My naming names or not is irrelevant to whether Democrats who can win exist and

implying that means I am pulling for Republican President is even more ludicrous.

Then again, what would I expect logic from someone who cites watching Judge Judy to support arguments against SSDI?

[Thinkingabout]

88. Say whatever you like it only adds character to some, it does not change me in

The least, yes I will use Judge Judy rather than using garbage from FOX etc. At least I know who you are now.

[merrily]

91. Also bullshit. I've never used garbage from FOX. Don't watch it.

The only things I even see from Fox are snippets that people like Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow play on their shows, which is the kind of show I do watch. I have never linked FOX or quoted anything from it.

So, you pulled that lie straight out of your ear. I'd say that tells us who you are, but, judging by replies of other DUers to you that I have seen on other threads, I think most here caught on to your shameful, fact free smear tactics ("pulling for a GOP candidate," "using garbage from FOX," SSDI recipients don't have to have worked and are frauds, etc.) long before your replies to me on this thread.

[Thinkingabout]

95. Yep, I' m right.

[merrily]

96. No, but that's never stopped you before and I don't expect it to stop you now or in the future.

[Thinkingabout]

98. Proving I am right huh

[merrily]

104. Yes, telling you you're wrong proves you're right. Just as "good" as your "logic" upthread.

At least you're consistent!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

118. Expect the next reply to be "I know you are, but what am I?". nt

[merrily]

141. Well, that would at least be cute

for a five year old. His or her replies are uncute at any speed age

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

223. You're right. I set my expectations too high.

[merrily]

226. I understand.

[Thinkingabout]

148. NOPE.

[ND-Dem]

157. says the person who used a right wing website to support her social security misstatements

[merrily]

178. To be perfectly fair, he or she also used the guests on the Judge Judy show to support his fact free

assertions about SSDI. After all, they are almost every bit as reliable about law and facts as Jerry Springer's guests.

[DonCoquixote]

110. Now this is where

the name "liz Warren" comes up. That's ok, Hillary will kneecap her the way she did Kerry in 2004.

[BlueCaliDem]

143. As much as I admire and would love Senator Warren as president, she will lose.

She might be the darling of the Left, but she has no appeal to the voters that matter to win in general elections: Independents. SoS Clinton has them on her side according to the latest CBS poll. But even if that weren't the case - and there's a huge possibility that that poll is wrong, too - Senator Warren will need the backing of congressional Dems in order to get things done, and I'm not so sure she has that kind of clout yet.

And aside from the above, she's stated that she will not run for the presidency in 2016. Many times, actually.

[Thinkingabout]

147. A sensible one.

[BlueCaliDem]

242. Thank you, Thinkingabout. eom

[DonCoquixote]

172. an analysis

" but she has no appeal to the voters that matter to win in general elections: Independents. "

Translations, these same reagan democrats that we have been offering our first born children to ever since Ron Ray Gun, the ones notorious for picking real republicans over fake ones every time.

" Senator Warren will need the backing of congressional Dems in order to get things done, and I'm not so sure she has that kind of clout yet. "

You think Hillary will? News Flash, the Congress knows that they owe their lives to the Koch Bros. They knows that if they give Hillary so much as a cup of cofee, they will find someone primarying them who does nto need to be qualified, because the pacs and the Churches will say he or she is. Hillary will make it easy to deny her, because she, like Obama sadly,is a built in punchline for the GOP, that minority figure they can hate on, plus she will be sold as Bill's third term.

"And aside from the above, she's stated that she will not run for the presidency in 2016. Many times, actually."

Neither has Hillary, and if you had a nickel for every "surprise" in the race, you could fund a super pac.

[BlueCaliDem]

243. Thank you for your analysis, although I disagree with it. eom

[merrily]

183. In your opinion, Warren will lose. In my opinon, Hillary will lose. Let's hope someone else runs.

I haven't been wrong yet, except I didn't think Perot would run a second time and he did.

[BlueCaliDem]

241. Well, I've been wrong plenty of times, so who knows? Maybe you'll get it right again.

[merrily]

268. Or, I'll be wrong the second time.

Perot was a wild card. So is starting to anoint a Presidential candidate before the incumbent even begins his re-election campaign.

[snappyturtle]

12. ......

[Man from Pickens]

14. Other countries, too!

She did a bang-up job in Syria, Lybia, Egypt...

[RiverLover]

15. Yep, even more American jobs would be outsourced.

Change is good!

[tkmorris]

16. What does that even mean to you? Change what?

I suppose the name on the letterhead will change, is that what you mean?

You realize you've said exactly nothing here? It literally is not possible to make an emptier statement about Hillary's candidacy than what you have written.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. What are some of the changes that you anticipate

And are they consistant with her previous actions and words?

[MannyGoldstein]

68. Who'll, no doubt, immediately receive huge contracts from TV networks

for doing baby reportage.

Because they'll do a really, really good job.

[L0oniX]

72. A TV series in the making.

[pnwmom]

85. When have you ever made a similar comment about a male candidate?

That was sexist, no matter what your gender.

[L0oniX]

89. It wasn't intended to be what you think but I'm sure you didn't struggle to take it that way.

[pnwmom]

92. Bias is often unintended and subconscious. n/t

[L0oniX]

102. I know you are for Hillary ...and you know I am not ...which has nothing to do with...

bias is often unintended and subconscious

Ok ...sure.

[merrily]

107. Be ready to be accused of sexism many more times.

Someone here accuse me of sexism when he posted that Hillary had made a mistake in her story about getting shot at in that airfield, but she corrected it immediately. I replied that it was no mistake and she did not correct it until after the lie had been exposed in the media. My post was factually accurate; his was a tall tale.

Bam! He accused me of being sexist.

Maybe the Hillary campaign come with instructions? Her supporters act like it comes with a warranty of victory, so why not instructions?

[pnwmom]

119. Do you really not understand the sexism in the comment about Hillary's grandchildren?

When have you ever made a similar comment about a male candidate with grandchildren?

[merrily]

123. Don't put words in my post. If you don't want to reply to what I actually posted,

I do understand, but I am not engaging on stuff anyone only pretends I posted.

Whatever Loonix's comment was, it was deleted well over an hour before I saw you accuse him of sexism. I never saw it. Yet, your reply to me implies I can't see what you imply was obvious sexism? In a post that was self-deleted before I ever saw it.

Thanks for proving my point!

[L0oniX]

249. I think we know what this is about and it's not sexism. It's Hillary supporters using sexism...

to attack the detractors.

[pnwmom]

117. You are wrong. I am for whomever is chosen as the candidate in the primaries.

I don't even know who will be running yet so I can't say who I will vote for. But if she is chosen I will certainly vote for her in the General.

[merrily]

135. Anyone you hope will oppose Hillary in the primaries?

[pnwmom]

144. I'm still neutral, as I was the last time when I liked all three main candidates.

I object to people who try to short circuit the process by announcing loudly that if Hillary is the nominee they won't vote for her no matter what.

Six years ago I was wrong about John Edwards's character. But at the time I thought there was little difference policy-wise between the three and that I would have been happy to support whomever won the primary.

During the primary I'm going to be trying to figure out who I think will do the best against the Rethug in the General. That's my bottom line. I like Sanders, for example, (who unlike Warren has spoken about running) but I don't think he has the organization or the temperament to do well in the General. However, he has the opportunity to prove otherwise.

[merrily]

227. I plan to remain neutral until at least the filing deadline, the

obvious exception being, for me, Hillary. I am not neutral about her at all, but that doesn't need saying. Many have assumed I am supporting Warren and the rest have assumed I am supporting Sanders. Until Charlie, my tag line said otherwise. I think I'll go back that soon. Not that it's likely to change anyone's mind, anyway, but I enjoyed it.

[L0oniX]

105. Is there any candidate yet? n/t

[merrily]

116. Forget her words. I am sure she will adapt them to the current populist mood, just as Mitt has.

The media spinners will do their bit, too. And the effort to direct our attention away from her history and breathlessly await her shiny, new campaign rhetoric has been underway at DU for months. But, let's review some highlights

She sat on the board of WalMart, one of the most notorious corporations in the nation. She worked for a corporate law firm. She was a founding member of the DLC in 1985. She urged her fellow senators to vote for the Iraq War. She has pandered to corporations for years, including a relatively recent speech in which she repeated the high tech corp. lie that 350 million Americans don't include people with high tech skills, so we need immigrants from other nations to do American jobs here, just as their countrymen do them overseas.

If campaign rhetoric, tailored to the new mood in the US since Occupy, overcomes her lifetime record, that would be very unfortunate for the Party and for the Nation.

BTW, OT a little, but speaking of populism, have you noticed that Obama's approval ratings have gone up dramatically since he started talking about things free junior college and lowering taxes on the middle class while increasing them on the rich?

Yeah, too bad America just won't elect populists, no matter what, huh?

[ND-Dem]

159. yeah, americans hate populism. hate hate hate. they like shit wages, no time off, and sending

jobs to slave labor camps in china.

[merrily]

163. Clearly, you are not a pragmatic neoliberal who

takes from each and every poll and election the lesson that Americans won't vote in their own economic interests anymore--and that Democrats are powerless to do anything about that.

Further, it's becoming clearer and clearer that you are a Republican. Maybe even a Teabagger. Or a Paulist. At the very least, a left Libertarian. Bottom line, your goal is obviously to make Democrats lose elections, even if only causing people to stay home on election. (Though your posts are dead wrong, they have those powers anyway.)

Get thee behind me.

(And yet, not very far off at all from things that have actually been posted to me, in all seriousness, time and again here.)

[Bettie]

24. Maybe she SHOULD be the catalyst for change

but, she benefits from the status quo.

The change she's likely to embrace is reducing regulation on Wall Street and giving corporations more power over our economy and more rights over our lives.

[nationalize the fed]

28. Is that you, Chelsea?

Nice try.

[whatchamacallit]

32. I like stuff n/t

[Octafish]

33. Like changing Bush 'n' Cheney into prison garb?

Anything less fall short.

[L0oniX]

73. +1

[merrily]

138. Well, no Dem is going to do that. Them sleeping dogs gonna continue to be left to lie.

A lot of that stuff went through House and Senate committees and no one wants a pissing contest about what did and what did not, with documents being leaked etc. Besides, some of the things done during the Obama administration can be questioned, too. For one thing, drone killings have increased by six or eight times, (I've forgotten which and am too lazy right now to google right.) And there are still questions about extraordinary rendition and black holes during the Obama administration. Sometimes, Amnesty International has implored Obama to stop certain things; sometimes, it has applauded him.

[cascadiance]

36. The changes she and her husband and other DINOS brought with H-1B expansion brought BAD change...

... to this country, when many like me who used to have a decent standard of living are at this moment living paycheck to paycheck!

NO THANK YOU!!! We need to change HER and other corporatists' change, not continue it!

[LawDeeDah]

48. There is one thing she can change, her accent:

oh, the embarassment. how the heck can she do this stuff, it's sooooooooooo sad.

[Art_from_Ark]

120. I don't think you can automatically call it a "fake" Southern accent

After all, she spent nearly 20 years in Arkansas, and her husband is an Arkansas good ol' boy. Lots of people in Arkansas have accents that don't sound like the stereotypical "Southern" accent.

[merrily]

179. If she employs the accent highly selectively in public, you can call it a put on accent, even if her

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)

imitation of a real Arkansas accent is dead on accurate.

[Art_from_Ark]

193. I employ an accent selectively in public

Here in Japan, when I have to speak English, I have to make a conscientious effort to try to speak it as accent-free as possible. When I'm back in Arkansas, I can let down my guard, so to speak, although having lived overseas for so long has affected the way I talk even when I'm back home. It's not so noticeable in my relatively cosmopolitan part of the state, but if I happen to venture into a more rural part of the state, say, Madison County, then I make an effort to sound more like the locals.

Hillary spent 20 years in Arkansas, mainly in Little Rock, where the locals have a distinct accent that is a little different from what one usually associates with a "Southern" accent. It's entirely plausible that she picked up some of those mannerisms while she was living in the state.

At any rate, her accent is the least of my concerns about her.

[merrily]

196. None of what you said is inconsistent with my post.

The accent alone, without more, might be the least of my worries about her too, but I do think that the way she has employed the accent--or tried to--the one or two times that I did hear her employ the accent in 2008 said something pretty specific about her and it was not good.

Same when Cuomo, one of Hillary's campaign surrogates in 2008, got all down home (though not his home) and accused Obama of "shuckin' and jivin'." You know, like most Nooo Yawkah's juhst natcharally do.

[LawDeeDah]

231. I have not heard Hillary with this particularly strong accent before.

Having heard clips of her while Bill was gov in Arkansas is not near as thick as this one. Why she does this kind of stuff is beyond me. She invites 'point and laugh at me' too often.

[Autumn]

229. I haven't lived in the South for over 30 years. I can be with my family members down there for

five minutes and my accent is back and when they leave or I leave it takes me a day or so to get rid of it completely. It's not fake, it just happens. As always Fox news is full of shit.

[ND-Dem]

161. +100

[AgingAmerican]

37. Change such as?

Generic 'change' just doesn't do it for me. Reagan brought 'change' and look at all the damage that caused.

[closeupready]

38. Change like the six years she was on Walmart's Board of Directors, and failed

failed to implement any kind of change making women's work there compensated equally as men were, who performed the same work?

Yeah, if by 'change', you mean 'no change', then sure, I agree.

[frylock]

43. and maybe some hope, too!

[madville]

44. I can't tell if this is serious or sarcastic

It really could go either way

[TBF]

49. Either way it's a hit and run

OP never did come back to defend or answer questions. ??

[Harmony Blue]

221. Hillary has the best chance of beating Jeb Bush

any other candidate would crumble up against Jeb Bush. Most Floridians know what Jeb Bush is capable of but many have always underestimated him.

Hillary is also the one that can make changes on the world stage because she is respected worldwide.

[TBF]

232. Doesn't matter if neo-lib policies

are the flip side of neo-con. IF these 2 declare then we can look at their policies and voting records to see how far apart they really are. I think you're correct that Bush would have a great chance if he runs, but I doubt Hillary is the person to beat him. He's for big business while she's for big banks. What about the other 98% of the people in the country? As far as "respected worldwide" that's a very fluffy statement. Yes, everyone knows who she is. She has tremendous name recognition. But so does Bush. That doesn't make either of them the "best" candidates in my book.

What will either of them do for the average American? I don't think we should be supporting either one if we're looking at economic issues. If we're looking at civil rights, then yes, Hillary has consistently supported LGBT, Israel, and women. But is that enough? We've got a lot of folks economically hurting in this country right now. I think we need to dig deeper.

[JonLP24]

47. She'll bring the status quo to our country

and/or poll numbers will run our country.

[hughee99]

50. I oppose her for much the same reason.

I don't believe the sort of change she'd bring is the sort I'd like.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. "...it should be Hillary Clinton" Says WHO?

[zappaman]

57. What change are you speaking of?

Details please.

Oh wait, this is just a hit and run OP.
Nevermind.

[merrily]

61. What change? Even more of 1985 policies?

[L0oniX]

62. LMFAO

[merrily]

65. Me, too. Also, I note that the OP seems to have lost interest in this thread.

[Thinkingabout]

74. Damn, I thought I had accidently gotten onto a RW site and checked and I

Was wrong. This thread is a trash Hillary one with the same old same old cognitive dissonance post. I see Warren banners and Warren did not become a Democrat until the last few years and has finally gone left to where Hillary has been for years. Is this group working for FOX and Rove?

[freshwest]

106. Don't worry, when Warren supports Clinton she'll join the bunch under the bus.

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Dammit, it's getting crowded down here. At least we have each other after being abandoned by our betters. But they never gave us any food or water, no big loss...

[Thinkingabout]

115. Yep you are probably right, it is funny when sone refer to 1985, was this during the years

Of "who" was voting Republican? Oh now I remember who was backing Reagan and the down falling of the working class.

[freshwest]

124. An amazing amount of those labeled as *real Democrats* were GOP then.

Those who continue to bash Dems can't help themselves. They carry their disdain forward in order to demoralize Dems.

Warren, OTOH, may have been one of those rare 'principled' GOP who didn't see Ike as a socialist, believed in the social safety net and were for human rights back in the day.

Some of those still exist, even among the religious ones, but they are disregarded. The rest have been feeding at the Koch brothers trough for too long, and now they openly worship their new messiah, Mammon.

I don't discount Warren or Sanders, either one. They are both working within the Dem platform and have no problems working with any Dem. They are not myoptic like the haters.

For those who can't take the scales off their eyes and hate on Dems in kneejerk fashion, I have no use at all. Support for Warren or Sanders that implies either of them despite HRC, is dishonest and an attempt to give elections to Libertarians/GOP in the long run, it can't be avoided.

That being said, HRC is not my first choice, solely based not on the disdain of the *real* folks, but I just think the media has been paid off for decades and she'll be treated so badly that it will stick. It doesn't have to the truth, any of it, because a whole generation was brought up on Rush and others and they refuse to acknowledge where they are coming from. Because they don't even know.

[Thinkingabout]

145. Warren is very good in her field of expertise, I just don't know where she will go when action just

may be required in the future after her vote on the ISIS resolution, not sure she can make the right decision. Probably her vote was catering to her base but it sure puts doubts. I am not discounting some of the possible candidates but getting on DU and trashing with lies is not good. It sounds to be as they are extensions of FOX or working for Rove. I know this will settle soon. Yep, I got the dogs stirred up, then somebody let the dawgs out.

[merrily]

186. Reagan? Hillary and Obama both put him on their respective list of 10 Best US Presidents ever. 1985

was the year Hillary, Lieberman, Bubba and a bunch of white male Democratic politicians from Southern states were founding members of the DLC.; and DLC policies are very much alive, even though the DLC corporation dissolved.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Sanders often mentions the past 40 years as the period when the rich REALLY started doing better than ever.

But, you must have me confused with someone who decided on Warren. Except for knowing I don't want Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the nominee, I have not decided anything about my primary vote yet.

[hrmjustin]

126. Remember that she is going to win and some here just hate that.

Some here have honest disagreement with here but some just want to tear her down.

[Thinkingabout]

146. I think perhaps it for the lack of a candidate to really get behind.

[hrmjustin]

207. I think they need to get over it.

[onecaliberal]

79. Is this satire?

[LawDeeDah]

86. having been so dead broke, I suppose change is all she has!

[merrily]

185. That was funny. Kudos.

[benz380]

97. Hit n' run post. Tell us the changes. nt

[DonCoquixote]

103. but it should be Hillary Clinton to become the catalyst of change in our country.

Ok, first off, if the Clintons wanted to be the "catalyst of change" they could have done that, instead the change they did was to destroy Glass-Steagall and the Fairness Doctrine. She COULD be one if she were, let's say, to come out against the TPP, but she won't, or to announce that Bibi Netanyahu's license to kill would be revoked, but she won't.

[merrily]

140. I agree. Just a technicality, but

The FCC put what is very probably the final nail into the coffin of the Fairness Doctrine during the Obama administration.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

(And don't get me started on net neutrality or the Postal Commission.)

[DonCoquixote]

171. Indeed

though most of the nails were put in before Obama. However, you point out one thing, Obama was NOT supposed to continue Clintonian rightward shift, and most of the things people are angry at him for doing are the ways, from his cabinet on, that he turned his admin into Clinton part 3.

[merrily]

174. I did not read the wiki article to which I linked you that way.

As I read it, before, the FCC had made a a purely internal decision not to enforce it. (By "purely internal," I mean as opposed to having been forced by courts or Congress to cease enforcement. What Presidents may have suggested to the FCC is not part of this post.)

According to the wiki article to which I linked you, as late as 1987, which was pretty far into the Reagan administration, courts were saying the FCC did not have to enforce it, if it didn't want to. They did not say that the FCC could not enforce it, if it chose to, though. According the wiki, one of those judges was Scalia and even he did not say the FCC could not enforce it, if the FCC should ever decide to enforce it. .

Under Obama though, the language was dropped out of the FCC regs entirely. As best I understand it, as long as the language was still there, the FCC could have, if it wished, rescind its own earlier and purely internal vote and take up enforcement again.

Dropping the language entirely, though, means that, even if the FCC wanted to resume enforcement, it can't-- unless it holds rulemaking hearings allowing the anyone who wants to, including the lobbyists, to give input. The likelihood of a new rulemaking process coming up with anything like the 1949 language again?

If I am mistaken about the FCC's ability to rescind its own purely internal vote without holding public hearings, though, then striking the language entirely did not matter much. I don't know enough about adminstrative law to be sure. However, Obama did oppose reinstating the doctrine and the net neutrality flap is definitely his.

BTW, according to the wiki, Democrats in Congress protested when Reagan's FCC was choosing not to enforce it, They enacted legislation overriding that Executive Branch decision, but Reagan vetoed and then Poppy threatened a veto. No such legislation under Clinton or Obama, though, even when Obama's FCC struck the language entirely. (Great example, IMO, of DC kabuki.)

[ND-Dem]

162. clinton = more of the same, the last 30 years' same

[Logical]

112. LOL, I have no idea if this is a serious post. Nt

[benz380]

114. Click bait. nt

[merrily]

139. Well, the OP apparently lost in interest in the thread. That doesn't mean the replies are all

worthless, though.

[Purveyor]

153. "7" recs in 15 hours? That ought to tell you something... eom

[Thinkingabout]

154. She will do a fine job as President of the US, she has lots of experience in dealing with goverments

around the world, she has been keeping up with security concerns, has served on a presidential cabinet and understands how the Senate works.

[Ken Burch]

156. How can a militarist and a die-hard free trade supporter bring change? n/t.

[DonCoquixote]

173. ^^^^^^^^THIS FTW!

Simple. Clear. HONEST.

[saltpoint]

170. She bores a lot of people's asses off.

She's quite a poor speaker. She can't rouse an audience the way other Democrats can.

She has no campaign theme, apart from "I'm really famous, vote for me."

[joshcryer]

184. Clinton would have a similarly transitory role.

She would not bring significant change, but if we lapse back into electing a Republican then we're fucked.

Hillary Clinton will be the Gore to Obama as Gore would've been to Bill Clinton.

In other words, had we been allowed to have Gore as President, as he was duly elected, the Obama we would've elected (possibly even Obama) would've been a truly game changing candidate.

No wars, no 9/11, none of that shit, climate change being handled. The world would be a very different place.

[Ken Burch]

271. There is no way that eight years of centrist Gore would have led to an actually progressive Obama

We don't have to be lesser-evil for sixteen years before we're ALLOWED to be anything more than that.

Yes, Gore would have been minutely better than Bush(, the Court would have been better, but we'd have gone to war in Iraq anyway, since Gore would obviously have caved to the hawks, having no core values of his own)but there's no way that he could have done anything that would have freed Obama up to be more than he has been.

Obama largely failed to be progressive because he listened to Rahm and cut the left of the party out of the discussion as soon as the votes were in. We can all agree, I hope, that nothing Rahm ever suggested(including limiting the Cabinet solely to bland, passionless centrists with the sole exception of Hilda Solis and putting Wall Street guys in charge of economic policy) was ever the best possible decision.

[joshcryer]

272. You give Bush a massive pass.

Your post isn't credible.

[Ken Burch]

275. No I don't. Bush was horrible.

Gore would just have been slightly less horrible. Enough of a difference to vote for Gore, but that's it.

What I'm saying is that eight years of bland centrist Gore wouldn't have given Obama any more freedom of action than he had anyway.

There would still have been the same right-wing Congress and Gore would still have signed most of their stuff(as Clinton signed almost everything Newt Gingrich passed).

It's not like preserving slightly more of the status quo of 2000 was going to make any real difference as to what a president elected in 2008 would be able to do.

We never again have to nominate someone as far to the right as either of Bill or Al. The country has changed since then. And it's not an unchallengeable point that we had to go massively to the right in 1992 in the first place. Clinton/Gore only took 43% that year-ANY Dem would have matched that, even a Dem that didn't attack people just for being on welfare.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. I'll reluctantly support Clinton if she is the nominee but I don't expect

her to be anything other than yet another center right corporatist democrat. See Obama and Clinton.

[B Calm]

194. She going to force Walmart to pay a liveable wage?

[merrily]

216. Any indication she tried? How about resigning from the board in protest?

Or never accepting the position to begin with?

She knew what WalMart was when she took the position. If not, she knew pretty soon after that. Why was she gracing it with the presence of the Democratic First Lady of Arkansas, a pretty powerful statement?

[Vinca]

200. I would vote for Hillary in the general, but I don't see her as an agent of change.

I do love the idea of a woman POTUS following a black POTUS for a couple of terms just to blow the minds of the few Republicans who have them.

[KG]

215. she could but she won't.

[Stellar]

230. LMAO!

[Autumn]

239. So you have no response at all as to how Hillary can bring change to our country?

I understand. That's exactly why I no longer support her, I couldn't figure out any way she would or could change things either.

[sabrina 1]

240. Who would she have in her cabinet, especially in Finance and Defense? Would she remove all

the Republicans and Wall St representatives, CEOs currently serving in this president's cabinet? THAT would be change I could support.

[Tatiana]

245. Honest question: Has Hillary ever brought change to anything?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

[benz380]

251. Her voice once changed into a southern drawl. n/t

[merrily]

269. That's the second hearty laugh I've had reading this thread. Thanks.

[Thinkingabout]

256. Hillary has cosponsored several bills to increase the minimum wage and finally got it up to

$7.25. She tried to get it tied to the pay increased in Congress but that has not happened, they continuously vote pay raises for themselves and to hell with the rest of the US. She is wanting to push for jobs for working Americans.

[wildbilln864]

273. change is one thing...

improvement is another. Will it be change for the better or worse?

[sendero]

274. They must be minting deludinoids...

.... at a really fast pace.

Obama has stabilized nothing and HRC is a banksters dream, just like her husband.