It is not Secretary Clinton's credibility on social issues that many Democrats

[Zorra]

and left independents are concerned about. It's pretty much a given for everyone, at least everyone here at DU, that she is unabashedly socially progressive. She's awesome on social issues, this is undeniable, and infinitely commendable. This is a huge positive among the reasons to support her candidacy.

It's not rocket science, and this is not any kind of conundrum whatsoever for any reasonably perceptive person who has the ability to breathe and think logically at the same time.

What some Democrats, and the majority of left independents, are concerned about is that, if elected, she may govern as a total global free market capitalist 1% puppet.

The democratic left wants a government that is fully committed to promoting the best interests and best quality of life for all human beings, and not a government that is fully committed to promoting the aggressive profit and privatization agenda of wealthy private interests.

If Secretary Clinton begins to sincerely and accurately publicly address populist economic issues exactly the way that Senator Sanders has been doing, she is likely to gain more trust and support from more Democrats and left leaning independents who wish to support a candidate committed to addressing all the social, economic, and environmental issues critical to a healthy environment and a genuinely healthy functioning representative democracy.

Some of us genuinely detest the fact that wealthy oligarchs and wealthy private interests have so much control over our government. Oligarchs who very obviously use their wealth to subvert our democratic ability to govern ourselves. Many of us believe that this critical problem, as well as all issues of social inequality and injustice, should be a primary concern of any Democratic presidential candidate who desires our support.

This is not an unreasonable expectation of any Democratic presidential candidate, or Democratic president, and any Democrat who believes that this is an unreasonable expectation may want to consider that oligarchy is exactly what the republican party is fully committed to preserving.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States..."

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[uponit7771]

2. I agree Hillary will have a HARDER time seeming FDR-ish than Obama BUT.. BUT.. they hate Obama

... for a good portion of his economic stances and I'm not talking about the right.

At some point she has to just be herself and think her policies are the best

[rurallib]

9. My problem with Obama and Hillary in 2008 was their stands on economic issues

and that is my problem with Hillary right now. Particularly the closeness to Wall Street.
The power of money in our government must be curtailed. That is where we really need a champion.

Were she to come out against the TPP that would mean a lot. Not holding my breath.

Still a President Hillary Clinton is so much more desirable than any Republican, I will work my ass off for her election should the Democratic Party in their collective wisdom nominate her.

[cascadiance]

85. And I still believe that Edwards was "left in the race" to siphon off our votes...

... for those of us concerned about these economic issues, that were concerned about many of Hillary's stances, and the nebulousness of Obama's campaign, and wanted someone who was perceived with a more realistic chance to win that someone like Kucinich.

I think the PTB knew about Edwards' problems a LOT earlier, but left him right up until Super Tuesday, to draw progressive votes in to his "rat hole", and away from someone like Kucinich being still an option later (who might have made the debates a bit more "interesting" too and perhaps forced a bit more commitments from candidates like Obama and Clinton).

[NCTraveler]

3. K&R. nt.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. I don't trust her on social issues

since if her focus groups shift and suddenly indicate that marriage equality is a losing issue, she will shift her position as well.

Remember that until recently, her views on marriage equality were neo-Confederate, i.e. "Let the states decide". She seems to have forgotten that that particular argument was settled almost 50 years ago in Loving v. Virginia and her side lost.

[Zorra]

5. I sincerely believe that she has completely evolved on the issue of marriage equality.

I'm positive about this

[MellowDem]

56. I sincerely believe she's been faking it the whole time...

Like Obama did, and shifting her views with the political wind. I sincerely believe, like Obama on this issue, she was being politically calculating and completely immoral and cowardly, and I find it to be one of the reasons I have little respect for her.

[darkangel218]

6. I will never forget her "let the states decide" crap.

[darkangel218]

14. Jimmy Carter is not running for Presidency in 2016, is he??

And her statement was made recently , in 2007. Sorry, I'm not ok with that.

[darkangel218]

19. He is NOT running for Presidency!!!

What does JC have to do with HC???? We are talking about HC, a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, who changes her mind so quickly, and expects us to believe her.

It's your choice to like her and vote for her, and it's my ( and others ) choice not to. Sorry you don't like facts being brought up.

[darkangel218]

29. My reply is "shittly"?

Sorry if the exclamation marks made it appear like that. My lunch break is almost over, I don't have much time, and here I am reading replies about Jimmy Carter , when we are discussing HC.

Have a nice day.

[darkangel218]

33. You need to check your attitude, if a few exclamation marks make you so angry.

PeaceNikki
31. Yes. You replied "shittily" - that's an adverb to describe how you replied. You do that often.
It was shitty. You got shitty with me and it was uncalled for.
Sorry you don't like facts being brought up." is fucking shitty. I brought up a "fact", to. It was about the sentiment you stated you'd "never forget" followed by a pukey guy.

Lighten the fuck up.

You think I don't know what an adverb is? And "I" need to "lighten the fuck up"? Look at your own language and attitude.

Later.

[darkangel218]

37. You can use the f word all you want, it aint going to make it true.

Later gater.

[seabeyond]

43. something is happening to do. i click my post, and get your post. hmmm. nt

[seabeyond]

46. lol lol. i can get ot my post if i scroll down, so still there.

but, odd, yes.

[justiceischeap]

48. Hillary Clinton's evolution on LGBT issues

• In 1996 she supported DOMA
• In 1999, she stated at a fundraiser "she supported "domestic-partnership measures" that permitted homosexual partners to receive the same health and financial benefits as married couples." However, she still supported DOMA (Source: CNN.com , Feb 11, 2000)
• In 1999, she was also in favor of lifting the ban on homosexuals in combat (Source: “Inside Politics” Dec 9, 1999)
• In June 2003, she introduced legislation that granted homosexual couples the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts.
• In July of 2003, she wouldn't answer whether or not she still supported DOMA when asked in an interview
• In 2008, she was still pushing for civil unions and stating that states should decide but declaed she saw no reason that LGBTs should be treated differently under the law nor should our unions be less respected
• In 2011, she gave the UN speech that "Gays rights are human rights"
• In 2013, she released the Human Rights Campaign video in full support of marriage equality

If this is a fast evolution on the issue, I'd hate to see if she'd gone slow.

How many LGBT individuals do you know whose parents or families are still "evolving" on the issue? I was fortunate when I came out to my parents that they accepted me but I know people who are still fighting that fight with their families.

[Agschmid]

50. This.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Now, compare her evolution

to that of the popular polls.

I would be willing to accept her "I evolved on this issue" excuse if she ever bothered to apologize for being wrong.

[justiceischeap]

97. What does she have to apologize for?

As Senator:

• Co-sponsoring ENDA?
• Supporting legislation that would increase America's commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS globally?
• Voting twice against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?
• Voting to add sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes?

As Sec. of State:

• Sec. Clinton made LGBT rights a part of U.S. foreign policy: Sec. Clinton promoted equality for LGBT people as a core value within U.S. foreign policy. She also secured a policy change for foreign aid appropriation that would take into account a country’s record on LGBT rights.
• Directed the State Department to champion a comprehensive human rights agenda that included protection of LGBT human rights: Sec. Clinton directed the State Department to champion a comprehensive human rights agenda that included protecting the human rights of LGBT people. This allowed the State Department to use its full range of diplomatic and development tools to press for the elimination of violence and discrimination against LGBT people worldwide.
• Led the U.S. efforts with other countries to pass the first ever UN resolution on the human rights of the LGBT community: Sec. Clinton said “Today, The UN Human Rights Council adopted the first ever UN resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. This represents a historic moment to highlight the human rights abuses and violations that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face around the world based solely on who they are and whom they love.”
• Included LGBT people in the State Department’s Status of Human Rights: The State Department released the 2011 Human Rights report which provided a fully comprehensive look at discrimination and human rights abuses that LGBT people face within every country across the globe. This landmark report is evidence that LGBT communities are in dire need of human rights protections.
• Forcefully condemned LGBT harassment in Uganda and throughout the rest of the world:The U.S. advocated against Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality bill, which established a precedent for the US to counter efforts to criminalize LGBT people globally.
• Instituted policies within the State Department which directly impacted the LGBT community: Through a variety of policy initiatives Sec. Clinton helped strengthen the State Department’s LGBT policies by adding gender identity to the department’s employment opportunity statement, instituting new regulations on changing gender markers on the passports of transgender Americans, extending domestic partner benefits, and allowing same-sex couples to obtain passports, to name just a few changes.
http://www.eqcapac.org/site/c.5oIBJNPwGjIWF/b.9263369/

As First Lady (and Senator):
• Publicly supporting DOMA until 2007?

[Kelvin Mace]

98. Again,

my point (and others) is that her views only changed when it because politically safe to have those views.

None of this erases the damage done by years of support for DADT and DOMA. It may be considered mitigation, but the damage is still done.

Also, none of this explains her professed friendship with the 20th Century's worst American war criminal, Henry Kissinger.

[justiceischeap]

100. Don't bring Kissinger into LGBT issues.

She has, in my LGBT opinion, made up for her support of DOMA/DADT by working aggressively, with results, for the LGBT community.

She didn't have to champion LGBT rights as Secretary of State and if her doing so was for purely political gain, she was smart because it wasn't gaining her anything at the time. And I'm sure her hiring an openly gay campaign manager is just pandering too.

[Kelvin Mace]

102. She only switched her views on

LGBT issues when it became politically safe to do so. So, no credit, especially in the absence of an apology for past actions.

Sorry, character matters.

Also, that aside, social issues such as marriage equality and equal protection for LGBT does not threaten Wall Street, the people who are paying her way to the White House, so she has latitude to appear "liberal", while still quite conservative.

[justiceischeap]

104. I don't doubt her sincerity when it comes to LGBT issues

Of course, you're free to all you'd like. And why do people refer to my lack of equal rights as a social issue? As if someone who doesn't have the full rights of other citizens isn't as important as economic issues?

If I get fired from my job because I'm lesbian, that is an economic issue. It's an economic issue for the millions of Anericans who can legally be fired for our sexual orientation. Or housing discrimination. It's a very narrow view of economics and belittling to the people who have to worry about these things on a daily basis.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. It may be forever in the view of pundits

but unlike political pundits I have a long memory and attention span.

[rhett o rick]

54. I don't know, how do you feel about Jimmy Carter?

What does he have to do with this subject other than a deflection. "Hey, look over there, it's President Carter."

[rhett o rick]

66. And because he said it???? What? Makes it ok? Pres Carter won't get my vote

this time around.

[rhett o rick]

71. I am having trouble because you fail to tell us your point. nm

[hopeforchange2008]

73. I'll never forget her 'dodging sniper fire' in Bosnia

Brian Williams was deep-sixed for a similar misspeak. And I'm not saying that giving BW the boot was wrong. Hillary just seems to play a little loose with the truth sometimes.

[Kelvin Mace]

64. Sorry, even Jimmy Carter is wrong on occasion.

If we followed that view, mixed-race marriages would be illegal in Virginia and many other states.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. The view that states had the right to prohbit

interracial marriage is a neo-Confederate view. It is unfortunate that Jimmy Carter doesn't see this, but such is the case that sometimes even our heroes make mistakes. The entire Civil War was fought over whether or not the states right to regulate slaves overruled the federal government's.

That issue was resolved in 1865. The issue of the prohibiting marriages between different races was settled by the Supreme Court in 1967. I see no difference between marriage equality as it relates to race, from marriage equality as it relates to sex.

The view was wrong then, and was wrong now. I am sorry that Jimmy Carter fails to see this, and that HRC has only recently come to the correct conclusion.

To make an argument that state's rights trumps human/civil rights was the Confederate argument then, and the neo-Confederate argument today.

[okaawhatever]

10. I remember that it was an early strategy of the LGBT community to win same-sex marriage rights

state by state. That was their strategy, and it worked. As Americans who were neutral or opposed same-sex marriage began to see that it didn't have the effect the homophobe crowd had promised, it became less of an issue and garnered more support. Look at the time it took to get the first state or two to approve same-sex marriage, then look at how many states soon followed.

The state by state strategy was a good one and one that was effective. SCOTUS saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly.

[Ms. Toad]

82. You're conflating a strategy with a principle. They are not the same

Marriage is, in general, a matter reserved to the states under the constitution. It only becomes a federal matter when it violates the U.S. constitution. That means that the fight for marriage has to start with the states. Although it is clear to me that the legal reasoning that supported Loving v. Virginia also supports recognition of same gender marriage across state boundaries, that requires (1) a state which permits marriage - a very recent phenomenon and (2) a Supreme Court that is ready to apply Loving (not any until very recently. It would be unconstitutional to impose a national definition of marriage by Federal legislation. Following that "strategy" is the only real option open.

Arguing that following the strategy of which necessarily (from a legal standpoint) started in the states is the same as advocating the federal courts should stay out of it and let the states decide is really offensive.

[FarPoint]

12. What I do know, is that we CAN NOT trust any republican... ever.

Especially can't trust them on social issues.... They will kill them. Just realize how determined the republicans are
to complete the divide into the haves and have- nots.

Hillary may be a centrist but she CAN fight the republican terrorist at every turn. I'm voting Hillary.

[darkangel218]

15. Yah. She sure can fight the fight, being all over the place.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[FarPoint]

18. She has been successfully besting them for over 20 years!

She wants this job and can/ will do fantastic.

[Kelvin Mace]

60. She will fight them

except when she works with them in the interest of "pragmatism" and "bi-partisanship"

She will fight them, until the drum beat to attack Iran starts, then she will fall in line as she did with Iraq.

You can trust HRC on social issues, unless those issues contradict the will of her Wall Street contributors.

[FarPoint]

62. She will fight them harder than Obama has his entire term.

No one else can do it....nicer candidates want to but will fail.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. That is a very low bar

and even then, I have not seen much to support that view.

[hifiguy]

77. I am no HRC fan, but that is the one place I do trust her

more or less completely.

I don't trust her any farther than I could throw a locomotive on issues of economic justice, reining in corrupt banks, war and peace or the total surveillance state.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. The reason I don't trust her

is that she has been on the wrong side of several social issues until quite recently. Specifically marriage equality and drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.

[Marr]

89. I have to agree with you.

I don't think Third Way-types are as useful as actual liberals in any way-- not even on the social issues they use as their Democratic bonafides.

They never lead on those issues. They never, ever, advance them until they're proven political winners that can be used for leverage. They just sort of ride a wave on things like that, moving back and forth with 51% of the electorate, wherever that line of scrimmage happens to be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. How many other potential Democratic candidates hold the same views?

The ones I've heard spoken about hold the same views as Hillary.

I see this as a strawman. Against Republicans, of course she's far better. Against other Democrats and some 3rd party candidates she's much the same.

[Zorra]

17. I specifically mentioned Senator Sanders as an example of a potential Democratic

candidate who is speaking out on populist economic issues.

This should be obvious if you have spent any time reading the numerous threads concerning Senator Sanders' positions here.

If you see my OP as a strawman argument, I suggest you re-read the OP, a bit more carefully this time.

[FarPoint]

22. Sanders will not have the support of the Democratic Party as an Independent.

A quick fix party change won't pass the smell test. Additionally... Bernie can't handle the evilness of the Republicans alone.

[rhett o rick]

57. Sen Sanders has integrity. As far as handling the Republicons, Clinton

yielded to them in 2002. She agrees with them on the TPP and fracking. Is that the handling you are referring to.

[FarPoint]

61. Sanders is just too nice...he's a true good guy.

One of the greatest insights of our day...but he can't fight the republicans successfully.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. No. I was pointing out that anyone believing that Hillary's stance is unique is a strawman.

I was, in fact, agreeing with your OP.

[Zorra]

47. Sorry I misunderstood. My apologies.

I was actually shocked when wondering why you did not agree with the OP, in my misconception of your post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. No problem. My post is bit vague.

Old age. Not enough or too much coffee. I admire your posts.

[H2O Man]

13. Very good!

Recommended.

[Maedhros]

20. My belief is that our fundamental civil rights, as defined in the Constitution, are the foundation

for every advance we've made on social issues.

My question: can we really say we've made real advances if our right to assembly is steadily eroded? If unreasonable searches and seizures are being conducted on a nationwide scale? If our President can execute enemies of the state without due process? If the free press is under assault from the Justice Department?

Hillary can - and should - be supportive of (e.g.) equality for women. But the severe damage being done to our core civil liberties undermines the advances made on more specific issues, and the damage will continue until we have a leader who will stop abusing the Constitution. Obama merrily continued the abuse accelerated by Bush. I expect Hillary will maintain the status quo in this regard.

[reddread]

69. we never really needed Habeas

that western civilization stuff is outmoded.
how many more libyans will drown in exodus?
is there a pool somewhere?

[Maedhros]

74. I believe in womens rights, LGBTQ rights, racial equality.

Hell, I went door-to-door for ENDA and the Ryan White Care Act, and to fight DOMA, in the 90's.

But it's foolish to tout advances in (e.g.) LGBTQ equality under an Administration that has used the Espionage Act more than any other in history to suppress investigative journalism, that has condoned torture, that has expanded the national surveillance state, that has claimed the authority to execute citizens with no due process or oversight, that has waged elective war based upon lies, that manufactures domestic 'terrorism' cases for public relations purposes, that plans on ceding our sovereignty to international corporate panels.

Likewise, it makes little sense to pound one's chest with pride because a Democratic Presidential nominee talks about women's and children's issues without even mentioning any of the above.

[reddread]

75. stop making sense

incredibly disorienting.

[Maedhros]

83. It's as if we're entertaining a new concept of "equality"

whereby as long as we all lose our rights to the same degree, then everything is OK.

[reddread]

84. the flip side of "just us"

can you help me with the new definition of "inalienable"?
that one is a toughie.

[Maedhros]

88. "not applicable to aliens?"

That's why it's okay to kill lots of innocent people in far away countries as long as a Democrat is in the White House?

[reddread]

90. brown, nearly brown, perceivably brown, and sympathetic to brown people

have it coming.
I definitely dont see a Democratic White House as a necessity there.
The whole Cuba/Venezuala thing is equally confusing.
damned aliens. I should have known.
i was warned.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. What has annoyed me is discovering that all the straight folks who have taken economic advantage

of the LGBT community for so very long are unaware that their bigotry has had profound economic effects on us.
It's disturbing to be lectured to that 'jobs matter more than gay rights' when the longest standing legislative battle in the LGBT rights movement is ENDA, still not passed into law. Jobs. Protection from discrimination in employment is how this movement said hello to Congress. How is it that the straight progressives see that as just some 'social issue'?
The first LGBT issue I voted on was the Briggs Amendment. This was also about employment equity. The ballot question was simple, yes or no, should we fire all the gay teachers and those who support them?
The larger progressive left should have been our natural and leading allies in those fights. Instead I am told 'gay issues' are not about 'the really important things'.
The first many LGBT political actions I was involved with targeted Insurance and Phama Companies. Financial institutions. The very first ACT UP NY action in 1987 took place on Wall St, the theme 'No More Business As Usual'. The papers accurately reported that 'homosexuals' were arrested at the protest. The larger progressive left had no part it that first occupation of Wall St.

If you read the speeches of Harvey Milk, he speaks of economic issues constantly, of job opportunity and neighborhood empowerment, of marijuana reform, of racist tax laws, of Apartheid in South Africa and of poverty in America. About the struggles of the elderly and disabled, of immigrants and of every single person, equally and without reservation.
To reduce all of this to 'social issues' is pitiful, it seems to me that many straight progressives slept through the largest movements of our time, never even noticed what they were about. 'Oh, gays. AIDS stuff'.
Next time they see a massive people's movement, they should join in even if the people are LGBT or some other racial group. It's a thought.

[Zorra]

27. Good points. "Progressive" is often in the eye of the beholder...

Mending Fences

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x173419

[Bluenorthwest]

44. I have staight men telling me I don't care about jobs and health care when my entire life has

been about issues of employment and health care. I see people speak of civil liberties as separate from gay and women's issues, but Roe is a case about the right to privacy, a civil liberties issue, the gay rights movement started at Stonewall, demanding the right to assemble and be left secure in our persons and places. This IS civil liberties politics. It's not 'social issues' because the liberties in question are those of gay people or women.

[rhett o rick]

59. It's extremely important to all of us that we have an economy that helps all of us. nm

[Bluenorthwest]

92. That's what we've been telling you for my entire lifetime. And yet 29 States still allow

discrimination in employment against LGBT people. If you keep that shit in place, there is no equality no matter what else changes. ENDA still has not passed, it's been denied by the majority in Congress since the 70's.
It is hard for me to believe that people who care so much about economic justice and equality have never stormed the capitol to demand the end of legal discrimination in the workplace. Years this has been in the works. It was first introduced by two Democratic Reps who are now passed away, Abzug and Koch. Where is the passion from those who so sharply feel the sting of economic injustices in society?

Why do you think that if LGBT are treated more fairly, you will be treated less fairly? We are being shafted currently, does that benefit you? It was even worse a few years ago for us, was it better for you then? Do you really see this binary world?

Go learn what the issues LGBT people care about are. If you had a lick of sense you would claim us as your own and say 'look at the great accomplishments of the progressive movement'. But you don't. That's because of bigotry, that you see the other and not your own when you see LGBT people expand rights and economic parity.
The largest extension of Social Security benefits in our time happened when same sex couples became eligible for the same benefits you straights have always had. Social Security protections added for millions of people, and yet instead of celebrating that enormous victory for progressive politics you sneer that its gay and a social issue and not really the sort of thing progressives think is important.
It's very telling.

[rhett o rick]

96. I think you are fighting the wrong person. "If you had a lick of sense" well I do have a little

sense and it tells me you don't want a decent dialog. Best of luck, I am serious.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Make overturning Citizens United a litmus test for SC judges

All Democrats should do it. Hillary has already come out against the ruling, so it shouldn't be too hard for her to make that commitment, and it would/should go a long way toward raising the comfort level with her on the left.

What's often frustrating about Clinton/Obama and all mainstream Dems for that matter is their desire to appear "reasonable." So they'll say, "I don't have a litmus test," while the other side routinely does on a whole range of issues that hurt ordinary people. It's a half-assed, antiquated approach. The role of money in politics has made life a living hell for all, including Republicans, who run for office, and skewed outcomes toward pleasing the most destructive and nihilistic elements on our society. Take a stand, Democrats, starting with those who would lead us.

[BainsBane]

25. Whomever you decide to support for president

I hope you give some thought to what is an artificial distinction between social and economic issues. Lefitshbrit explained it very well here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6537286

Some of us genuinely detest the fact that wealthy oligarchs and wealthy private interests have so much control over our government. Oligarchs who very obviously use their wealth to subvert our democratic ability to govern ourselves.

I agree entirely with that view. However, where I diverge from you is in the assumption that the power of capital rests on an individual candidate. It is in fact systemic: on one hand it is the nature of the capitalist state, but it has also worsened and become more obvious due to recent supreme court decisions laying naked the cash nexus.

This is not an unreasonable expectation of any Democratic presidential candidate, or Democratic president, and any Democrat who believes that this is an unreasonable expectation may want to consider that oligarchy is exactly what the republican party is fully committed to preserving.

I wish that were so. However, my background as historian tells me that the state has always served the interests of capital. Even FDR, whom you favorably quote, was the savior of capitalism because he cobbled together enough band-aids on the system to ward of incipient revolution. It's important to understand that FDR implemented the New Deal in the face of widespread social movements that threatened to bring down the capitalism economy. That is what he sought to prevent. In that way, it was the unemployed people's movements, the farmers, the veterans, and countless other groups of ordinary Americans who truly made the New Deal. A modern-day New Deal would require a similar degree of activism. "Expecting" Democrats to deliver is a fool's errand. Entrenched interests never willingly yield ground. They must be forced to act. The history of social movements shows that has always been the case.

[Zorra]

32. Good points. And a great illustration of how widespread social movements that threaten

to bring down the capitalist economy serve a necessary function in influencing the owners of pseudo-democracies to make compromises that benefit the citizens subjects of pseudo-democracies.

A massive nationwide general strike might be just what we need right now to convince our owners that the beatings should not continue, or, at least, should not be so severe.

[BainsBane]

86. That's a tough lift

given the low percentage of the population represented by unions. Even during the height of this nation's labor movement, a general strike never took place in the US.

I recall various strikes as I was growing up, one in particular at the Hormel plant in Austin, MN. I recall people on the bus saying, "they already earn $8.00 an hour. I should be so lucky." That kind of attitude has been replicated in labor action after labor action in this country, until we now sit at a time period where union representation is only 10 percent of the adult population and wages falling. Through such attitudes, Americans have helped to sow their own economic decline.

[cali]

26. sorry, this is going to piss a lot of you off: She's fine social issues- not awesome

not a great lion or leader.

Even her language on choice leaves something to be desired. She waited until a few days ago to fully endorse marriage equality. That is not leading.

This is HRC on abortion- which yeah, she supports, but her rhetoric isn't great:

"I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

So, yeah. Her record is good, but her rhetoric on abortion isn't great and we desperately need leadership on abortion- more now than ever.

[tk2kewl]

28. social and economic issues are inextricably linked...

you can't be progressive on one and not the other without being full of BS

[progressoid]

108. Yup. n/t

[seabeyond]

30. do not tell me it does not matter, sit at back of bus, it is a minor issue and we will not have a

problem.

[Zorra]

38. I have never ever remotely indicated to you that "it does not matter". nt

[seabeyond]

40. does it have to be you? this is what the issue is. many dems that have problems with clinton. well,

i am telling you were we have a problem with our fellow dems, that have an issue with clinton, per your OP. dems telling us, we do not matter. we are a minor issue. get to the back of the bus. and any number of other little dismissive memes they are adopting.

[Dragonfli]

105. With all due respect, that is either a person made exclusively of straw, or an extreme outlier.

I read here a great deal more than I post and have yet to see anyone post as you describe.

Strawman, or extremely rare outlier opinion perhaps expressed by an odd troll before being nuked (I have never seen such personally and would like links to such nastiness).

The OP is correct IMO, nearly all Democrats feel you matter and all such issues are important but many also feel economic justice is just as important, in my own view economic injustice harms the very groups that need equality protections the most, so why would you not wish to fight for both alongside most of us? Why do you believe it must be one or the other, social justice or economic justice? They are inextricably intertwined after all.

[99Forever]

34. K. R

[WillyT]

39. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[FiveGoodMen]

42. Economic issues ARE social issues

The poor certainly don't have equal opportunities and are rarely given equal rights (in practice)

[zeemike]

87. And they are the basic social issues of all.

Because they affect all...all but the well off that is.
Gay marriage means little if you have to work for slave wages all your life and don't have a seat at the table...but of course our leaders never have to face that.

[Martin Eden]

51. I don't trust HC in matters of War & Peace

I don't trust anyone who voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

[PumpkinAle]

52. k&r

Nicely stated and there are many of us who feel the same. Thank you Zorra.

[Cryptoad]

53. Seems all the Haters have simple choice

since no other viable candidate is running as a Democrat. They can vote for Hillary, the GOP Candidate or not vote.....but if you working against the Democrat Party candidate you are working for the GOP candidate. Im going to vote for the most progressive candidate in the Race,

[hopeforchange2008]

76. No other viable candidate yet. /eom

[Dragonfli]

106. "all the haters", are you like twelve or something? /nt

[Ed Suspicious]

55. Agree. It is that she is unapologetically Third Way. That is my issue.

[KamaAina]

68. Not to mention her general hawkishness

and the whole C Street/Family thing.

[bbgrunt]

70. I'm not interested in campaign promises for

economic justice. I'll be looking at her donations and who she selects as advisors.

[fredamae]

79. I like her a lot

I think she's truly an amazingly accomplished, tough woman that history will never forget...yes, she is a social issue heroine...as many Dems are to varying degrees.....
The reason I cannot support her is because of her long, long intimate relationship with mega-banks/wall street/corporate - I just won't go there. Not again.

[brooklynite]

80. How many is "many"?

Polling suggests that SOME don't like her (as you would suspect); what is the evidence that MANY don't, other than the fact you're one of them?

[brooklynite]

93. Polling IS a snapshot...multiple polling is a motion picture

Clinton 2008 and 2016: There’s No Comparison

Hillary Clinton is polling about 20 points higher than she was around this time eight years ago, even though the polls pit her against strong candidates who probably won’t run, like Elizabeth Warren.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/upshot/huge-head-start-for-clinton-but-the-big-race-is-far-from-won.html?abt=0002&abg=0

(there's an attached map -- not copyable -- that show's her rating over a 4 year period leading up to 2008 and a three year period leading up to 2016)

POLSTER shows the trendline of Democratic Primary candidates all the way back to 2013.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[bvar22]

99. I have some problems with the OP.

Economic Fairness & Economic Opportunity for EVERYONE is the umbrella issue.
Almost all "Social Issues" fall under this umbrella.

One can NOT be "Socially Liberal" and an Economic, Wall Street, deregulating, privatizing "Centrist" (Conservative) at the same time.

[sabrina 1]

101. All Democrats are expected to be good on equal rights for all human beings. But anyone who supports

neo-liberal economic policies and neocon warmongering for profit, is harming those very groups.

Does she eg, support her husband's Welfare Reform program, speaking of social issues? I don't know, in fact I don't really know where she stands on any issue.

How about the Chained CPI? Does she support the lying notion that SS had ANYTHING to do with the deficit?

And how about her position on the TPP? These trade agreements that favor Corporate interests do NOT support minorities, they have been nothing but HARMFUL to them.

And who will she have in her cabinet? That will tell a lot so that question need to be asked of ALL candidates right from the start.

We didn't ask that during the previous elections and then were shocked to see so many Corporate CEOs and Republicans in the cabinet of a Democratic Administration.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. K & R

[Enthusiast]

107. FDR nailed that one! We are living it right this moment.

Corporate power must be reined in for the future of the nation and the very survival of democracy itself.

[ColesCountyDem]

109. Yes, she surely could be more progressive on economic issues! That said, ...

I'll be completely honest and admit that I am a democratic socialist, so I of course think that she is far too cozy with the bankers and other 1%-ers. I will vote for anyone who is more progressive than Secretary Clinton on economic issues in my state's primary, assuming someone does run against her and hasn't dropped out by that time. I want the pre-convention economic discussions dragged to the left, even if it's dragged there kicking and screaming. That said, ...

I am a pragmatist, and I've never bought into the whole "the lesser of two evils is still evil" garbage. We live in a real nation in a real world where real elections have real consequences, and I have no intention of doing ANYTHING that will increase the chances of some dominionist, recationary, Teapublican ASSHOLE winning in '16! On her worst day, Secretary Clinton shares and will promote an agenda that is FAR better and more compatible with my principles than an Teapublican. I will, in fact, work my butt off to see that she wins, if she is our nominee.

Don't overthink this one, my fellow progressives-- it's not a difficult choice.

[mopinko]

110. the problem i have with this whole issue

is that people seem to think that ANY president can do anything about it.
to a certain extent, the bankers and ceo's do have power. legit power. now, they have managed to puff themselves up all out of proportion to that real power, and need to be shut down.
but i think only the people can do that. and by that i mean, demanding fair districting, demanding voting rights, and dumping the corporate tools in congress.

if people havent learned just how limited a president's power is in the last six years, i have to question their cognitive abilities.

[cascadiance]

111. Yes, we need a movement, but those in government need to do what the movement wants at some point...

We need politicians that show that when the movement is big enough, they are not so compromised that they can work to support the movement and be the avenue to make these changes.

Yes, people can go down to protests, and take the time to do other things to help with a movement. But we in a movement aren't the ones elected in government that can make changes to make sure that something abusive like TPP doesn't get passed. But we need politicians that don't sound like they're working for us, and then actually work to push something like TPP behind closed doors against our interests.

I don't think anyone here wanting populist change expects all of these problems to be resolved tomorrow. But we need people who show their heart in an electoral process in wanting to work for us, not just using marketing language to try and make us think that their heart is with us when it isn't. That is the first part of the battle to take our country back. Without those in government that honestly want to work for us, fixing the system peacefully, incrementally, and in a democratic process will be impossible. The longer there aren't entities that can take these first steps, the more likely we'll head down something like a "French Revolution" path, where the whole process will likely be very destructive before it can be constructive, if indeed something constructive can come out of that sort of path. And then everyone will lose. But ultimately a path like that will likely happen if nothing is done to fix the downward path we're on now.