In need of information re: reason for dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton

[SylviaD]

Please someone give me a concise explanation for why elements of the party want to reject a fine candidate (my opinion) and in fact a historic candidate (again, my opinion) in favor of fringe candidates like Warren and Sanders?

I am not trying to offend, but it is my opinion that those candidates are unelectable and could lead to my worst nightmare: another Republican president.

I would like to know what the main opposition is to Hillary Clinton, who could possibly - very likely in my opinion - become or first female president, something I am VERY excited about.

Again please do not take offense if you support these other, fringe candidates. Or Joe Biden, or anyone else. I just don't understand, and I am worried and saddened.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. Here is one of my main reasons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420135

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

Hillary Clinton Defends 2002 Iraq War Vote On Meet The Press



Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html

Hillary Clinton backs using drones in Pakistan

ISTANBUL: United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday implicitly defended Washington’s use of drone strikes to kill suspected militants, days after an aircraft reportedly killed al-Qaeda’s Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libbi in Pakistan.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-15210-Hillary-Clinton-backs-using-drones-in-Pakistan

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[Thinkingabout]

9. An update on no regret on IWR Vote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/


There needs to be the same accountability on the vote on AUMF of which the only nay vote was Barbara Lee. The IWR instructed Bush on how to handle Iraq, Bush jumped past all means and pulled the inspectors out before the job was completed. The AUMF provided the funding and military force.

[BlueStateLib]

13. If the vote was for war, why was Iraq invaded by Hans Blix and the U.N Weapons Inspectors

Tim Russert called Hillary a liar, if you do the research Tim Russert comes off as a uninformed partisan hack.


Downing Street Memo July 23, 2002: The Defense Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Forget Clinton, do you really believe Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Harkin (D-IA), Kerry (D-MA), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), Kohl (D-WI) were hot to trot for WAR or would you even consider, a remote possibility that they were trying to divert war through United Nations and diplomacy.

Scott Ritter: Facts needed before Iraq attack
17 July 2002

Scott Ritter: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want the inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.

THE NATION: Half a Victory at the UN
December 2, 2002

In general, antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack. It provides a powerful tool to fight for US accountability to multilateralism and the UN. But it still reflects the heavy-handed domination of the UN and the rest of the world by the United States and ultimately sets the terms for war.


Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote
October 10, 2002

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.


Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mr. KERRY : My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process.

Mr. KENNEDY :The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.

Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake.

Mr. DODD: As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.

It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France's veto.

Mr. KOHL. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq.

Mr. BAUCUS. Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force.

Mr. JEFFORDS: We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives

Mr. DASCHLE: Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed. Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.

That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.

Mr. BAYH. I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action

Mr. BYRD. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.

Mr. BIDEN. only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now.

NOTE: The Levin Amendment would of gave veto power over the United States to France, Russia and China. IWR was meant to send a strong message to Saddam "you better comply" and he did

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.

Mr. KENNEDY. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now--and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.



Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Mr. BIDEN

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 07:18 PM - Edit history (2)

Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war.

Same thing. PNAC documents were readily available at the time, we all knew what the plan was.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor (9/11).

WAR!

for

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

[Maedhros]

78. If Hillary did not know what would happen after the IWR vote,

then she is too deeply stupid to hold the office of President.

[PowerToThePeople]

79. I agree. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

16. The bill Hillary voted for clearly called for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force

If the bill was titled Authorization for Inspections then there might be some weight to the defense that Hillary was merely voting for inspections and not war. Inspections are generally not considered to be military force however, a vote for the authorization of the use of military force is a vote for war.

[Thinkingabout]

101. Who removed the inspectors before the inspection was completed?

[DanTex]

2. Some people are just delusional.

They believe that the country is suddenly going to drastically shift its opinions and elect a self-described socialist, and they believe that there's no significant difference between Hillary and a Republican.

These are some of the same people who think Obama is a piece of shit, and that it would have been better if McCain won in 2008.

Basically, fringes are going to fringe.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I beg to differ. Obama is not what you called him, and McCain would have been a disaster.

You are overstating it.

There are significant differences between Hillary and any Republican.

[DanTex]

7. I didn't call him that. Another DUer who is revered by the far left did.

And the McCain comment was made by yet another one of DU's far-left heros.

You're right, I am over-generalizing though. Fair enough. There are also plenty of reasonable Sanders supporters who simply think he's better on the issues, and don't harbor the same irrational hatred for Hillary and Obama. But you can't deny that there's a lot of the latter going around here too.

[DhhD]

115. The problem is the 1%. Democratic socialism is the practice of Eisenhower. Blaming the

Far Left is blaming victims. Vermont never elected a communist socialist. The only socialist in America, that I know of, are the corporate welfare fascist that receive government welfare like billions in subsidies, tax breaks, tax refunds for offshoring their wealth and loopholes for Fossil Industries.

What did Obama do to remove the Bush Tax Cuts that he promised in his 2008 election campaign? Are the banksters that ruined our economy in Jail, as promised? HC said she at the last debate that she will deepen Obama's policies.

The American people deserve better that we got. This time we know what we are getting. And this time the choice is between keeping what we got or voting for Sanders.

[restorefreedom]

24. he describes as a democratic socialist

big difference. please read up on the topic if you want to discuss this. it's getting embarrassing that people on this board, who are more plugged in then most, don't know the difference between the two. Or perhaps they do know but they're trying to pull a Claire McCaskill or Chris Matthews and portray Bernie as something that he isn't.

socialists want to take government take over of business. dem socialists want stricter regulation and higher taxes but leave the structure basically intact.

we can't have a sincere policy discussion on this board if people are going to keep resorting to shit smearing. And inaccurate shit smearing at that.

[DanTex]

26. I'm sure the electorate that voted for W twice and now put both houses in GOP hands is going

to appreciate the difference.

[restorefreedom]

28. they won't

but they thought Obama was a socialist too, as the right-wing tried to portray him as a kenyan socialist Muslim arab. not there is anything wrong with being any of those things. But it didn't work with Obama and it won't work against Bernie. The socialism bullshit has been played, and most people are over it.

[DanTex]

30. Calling Obama a socialist didn't work because Obama never said "I'm a socialist".

In fact, he said "I'm not a socialist".

[restorefreedom]

35. and you really think the birther crazies believed him?

the millenials who are going to be largely responsible for Bernie winning the election are not affiliated with party or labeled ideology. They want solutions to problems. Bernie has outlined the problems, and he has the solutions. And they are smart enough to know what's what.

[arcane1]

40. Right? I don't get this "Sanders is a bad candidate because rightwingers won't vote for him"

But somehow we're expected to believe they would vote for anyone named "Clinton"

[restorefreedom]

42. actually the irony is

some of the younger trumpites might consider voting for him from anecdotal stories I've heard from people that I know who have college-age kids. so another myth goes down the drain.

[DanTex]

55. The electorate is more than just birther crazies and lefty millenial hipsters.

[restorefreedom]

57. all the more reason

why we need to get the correct info out about what socialism is. there are people in the middle who care enough to learn.

[Armstead]

59. Why do you do these things?

I know you are capable of reasoned arguments in support of your chosen candidate. So why revert to such moronic attacks on people, and total mischaracterizations of motives and opinions?

Doesn't do a lot to advance support for Clinton, if she in fact does get the nom.

[DanTex]

73. That's a good question. In part it's because I do think that some of the Bernie base is delusional.

And the delusional segment is very loud here on DU. You can't have missed the piece of shit thing. Nor the numerous people saying that Hillary is no better than a Republican, or that they won't vote for her if she wins the primary.

Am I wrong?

And then part of it is a "when in Rome" thing, this being primary season on DU. Although, to be honest, if I'm at a nice dinner with friends, discussing politics, I'll use pretty much the same language to describe the idea that a socialist running a grossly underfunded campaign is somehow going to defeat the multi-billion dollar GOP machine and deliver single payer healthcare, free college, and a minimum wage. Especially when he can't even get his supporters all over the internet to stop offending black activists.

Yes, I'm capable of reasoned argument, and I'm also capable of calling things what they are without mincing words.

[JackInGreen]

88. What are Bernie supporters delusional about?

Sincerely.
Bandied conspiracy theories not withstanding.

[DanTex]

93. The two things I mentioned in my first reply.

First, that Hillary is the same (or roughly the same, or anywhere close to the same) as a Republican.

Second, that Bernie can beat the GOP running as a self-described socialist running a grossly underfunded campaign.

[artislife]

66. And some people don't see that a lot of people

think "Enough is enough!"

This trend has been happening for more than a decade. The real issue is that we have a planet on the brink, people on the brink and a government on the brink.

We don't have time for incremental change. Hillary is not proactive, not very clear and she agrees with a few items that hubby passed that hurt regular people.

Enough!

[treestar]

95. Yes and still thinking the presidency is all you need

they've chosen an odd Messiah this time.

They are under the delusion that since Obama beat Hillary, Bernie can. Completely blind to the obvious fact that Bernie is no Obama. Just because people once thought Obama could not beat hillary and he did, they think that means Bernie will do the same, when he has not 1/100th the charisma or qualities of Obama.

[kenfrequed]

103. Gald to see you are utilizing ad hominems

Or strawmen, or broad generalizations, or any other logical or argumentative fallacy or bad argument.


Oh wait...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Just off the top of my head:

TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, in bed with Wall Street, alters her views to match the prevailing attitudes by voters.

She is also a war-monger.

Those are the main things for me.

[AtomicKitten]

44. + my concerns as well

especially the last bit

[Tommy2Tone]

56. You forgot those emails..

I mean all war mongers use evil emails to spread war.

[artislife]

67. Dumb ones don't use the server provided by the government.

[immoderate]

4. I think she would rush into war to show her "toughness."

She would have a Republican majority behind her.

--imm

[whatchamacallit]

6. I've always felt she lacked candor, judgement, consistency, sincerity...

And then there's stuff like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251516267

[winter is coming]

8. +1. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

53. omg thank you

[Bjorn Against]

10. Bernie is not the fringe, the 1% is the fringe

Bernie is not a fringe candidate at all, his views are shared by tens of millions of voters across the nation.

The 1% is the fringe, they represent an extremely small portion of America and yet they have more political and economic power than 99% of the people.

Bernie is fighting against the 1% fringe, Hillary is funding her campaign through donations from the fringe.

[Trajan]

76. +1,000,000 ....

[Maedhros]

11. Hillary has aligned herself with some unsavory interests,

including the private prison industry:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/

Her Iraq War vote was truly heinous, but the last straw for me was the Libya bombing.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-ten-myths-in-the-war-against-libya/

An illegal, aggressive, elective war based upon lies, that unleashed untold suffering on the citizens of Libya - and Hillary gloated about it: "We came, we saw, he died." This is the same as Bush's "Bring 'em on!" bravado.

The bottom line is that Hillary represents an extension of the Bush-Obama foreign policy doctrine and preservation of the economic status-quo that is crushing the working class.

[840high]

46. ty

[cali]

12. I think she's a very dubious bet when it comes to electabilty

I also think she's dishonest, a poor campaigner, arrogant and entitled and more interested in personal achievement than ideals.

I also think she's been on the wrong side of too many issues and that her judgement is deeply flawed and lacks courage.

Please don't take offense.

[ibegurpard]

23. nice summation

[Marr]

29. +1, that about sums up my views as well.

What's more, the people who keep claiming she's so electable tend to forget that Obama won that first election by presenting himself as something a lot closer to Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton.

I think Hillary is one of the few Democrats who could actually lose to the current stable of Republican candidates. She's the only thing that could energize their entire base into voting for whichever clown wins their primary.

[SonderWoman]

14. I have no idea. She is overly qualified and a global citizen.

She would be better for the economy and foreign relations.

[BillZBubb]

17. No offense if you support a FRINGE candidate! LOL.

So everyone else but Hillary is a FRINGE candidate! We get it.

Sometimes these posts are too hilarious.

[R B Garr]

97. Will you be calling the Soccer Moms "corpodems"?

That's the kind of fringe talk and name calling that turns people off in droves, and it is coming from the fringes.

But you can laugh all you want.

[BillZBubb]

98. What bullshit.

There is plenty of "fringe talk" from each candidates supporters. I can laugh at it because people on each side are being ridiculous.

You can delude yourself into thinking you are on the side of purity all you want. I'll keep laughing.

[R B Garr]

99. Yet a lot of the so-called progressives are really ex-Reagan voters,

Reagan Democrats, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader type voters, and they are the ones calling themselves pure, but they are fringe, and they just love to call the loyal Dem base smug little labels/names. But you think you are not deluding yourself. Hilarious.

So I guess you people haven't decided what to label the Soccer Moms yet. Tsk. Make sure it's something alienating and a complete turnoff since you're so good at it!

Talk about laughing: all of the conspiracy theorists here are also Bernie supporters, so that should go over well in mainstream America. lol.

[BillZBubb]

104. Your posts are fringe, buddy. You'd better look in the mirror.

Making silly generalizations totally kills your credibility.

Who is "you people"? You sound like a wacko, nut job.

I am not a Sanders supporter any more than I am a Hillary supporter. I'm a Democrat supporter. I'll make up my mind on a candidate when I've heard all I need to hear from each of them. That allows me to laugh at fanatics like you who only see one side through a filter of hatred.

[R B Garr]

105. Nice try, pal. You people making fun of Hillary supporters give you away

as the Fringe, so deal with it. Look at your post I responded to and you'll see quite a whacky generalization, bubs. Bernie is actually the fringe and he even says it himself by saying he doesn't want to join the Democratic party. He just wants to use the Democratic party election resources for free. Sounds pretty fucking fringey to me.

You People are the fringey group making enemies on the internet by your unearned elitist talk, usually where you call people names and make fun of Democratic candidates. Fuck that. I'm sick of shit like that from You People, and really all you deserve is mocking if that's all you have to offer.

I get it that making fun of Hillary makes you uber cool and gives you mega street cred with the fringies, but Bernie is still not a Democrat, so by definition, that is fringe. DUH!

[HereSince1628]

18. She has zero credibility as a democratic socialist.

[Juicy_Bellows]

19. There have been a lot of good replies already.

In my opinion, there are people that think the last 35 years of American politics have been working out well. These folks, like Hillary.

The rest of us are sick of the bullshit and want a representative democracy.

[PatrickforO]

71. Yes. Sick of the bullshit. That's me.

[Juicy_Bellows]

74. I believe there are more of us than them.

We need to get the people that rarely or never vote to the polls. Sanders is the guy to do it. Cheers!

[BOSNYCDC]

20. No evidence Bernie can't win the GE

The MSM doesn't poll on those Bernie vs Republican head to heads too often. I wonder why?

Also if you don't mean to offend, you should shy away from the word "fringe". It's offensive even if you don't mean it that way.

Now, some of my reasons why I don't support HRC in the primary (though will in the general should it unfortunately come to that):

1) Iraq war vote
2) Didn't support marriage equality until 2013
3) TPP
4) Keystone
5) A whole handful of quasi-racist and bigoted policies put in place during the Clinton years (e.g. DOMA, DADT, Welfare reform, etc.)
6) A feeling that she will not be able to win the GE because, frankly, 60-ish% of Americans just don't like her.

Also, and this isn't a big deal to me, but the email server thing is sloppy and shows bad judgement for a person who's planning on running for POTUS. Just a dumb call by someone who should know much, much better.

[restorefreedom]

21. you say you don't want to offend

but you keep calling the non dnc backed candidates "fringe". that in itself is insulting and dismissive, even if you don't mean it to be.

reasons for preferring bernie over hillary

tpp
keystone xl
glass steagall
minimum wage
corporate welfare
IRAQ and possible Iran WAR

that is just the short list.

this not personal. there are very serious policy differences between the two. bernie wants to change the power structure away from the billionaire class and bring it back to the people. i see no evidence that that would happen in a clinton administration

[HFRN]

33. add her husband's NAFTA, H-1b visas, MFN-China

and you have a lot of Bush Clinton tweedle dee-tweedle dum

[restorefreedom]

36. i knew there was more!

I just ran off the top few that came to my head immediately. but yea, ssdd with either hillary or jeb.

[HFRN]

37. I'm sure there's still more

but that's what I thought of, off the top of my head

[restorefreedom]

47. sadly, if we all take our quick lists

it could get quite long

[HFRN]

50. i know what my place is in her world

[restorefreedom]

52. ugh., yeah, many of us will be steamrolled. nt

[Tommy2Tone]

58. This is why Bernie will lose

Just a few of Bill's accomplishments

Longest Economic Expansion in American History
Created 22 million jobs while in office
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Created family and medical leave act for 20 million Americans
Highest Incomes in all levels
Deactivated more than1,700 Soviet weapons
Converted the largest deficit into the largest surplus in American History

Now tell me what the hell has Bernie done but talk a bunch of shit he can't make happen? Bill is one of the most popular presidents in our lifetime and is beloved by Democrats. Your calling him tweedle dee just shows how out of touch you are.

[PatrickforO]

62. Bill isn't running. Hillary is.

Not quite the charisma, either.

[Tommy2Tone]

106. Oh now you say that..

When it's to their advantage Hillary is always linked to Bill.

[HFRN]

64. there's no question that things looked great in 2000

before it all crashed and we were stuck with NAFTA, MFN-China, and H-1b visas which have transferred almost unbelievable wealth away from the American middle and working classes and to India, China and the international 1%

yup - the party was fun

but the hangover is still with us

and we've learned our lesson

[Tommy2Tone]

107. You sound like a Bush fan

blaming Bill for Bush's horrible policies.

[HFRN]

109. out comes the knee jerk accusations of being a republican

nice try, but all the things I mentioned were supported by Clinton

[Picking Dem]

70. Hillary is not Bill.

She has the charisma of a stern librarian.

[ibegurpard]

22. I'm sorry

But when you couch your question in statements about people supporting "fringe" candidates you are not looking for sincere dialogue. What about Bernie ' s message do you consider "fringe"?

[Ron Green]

25. She, along with all the Republicans, is not using the word

"oligarchy." Since oligarchs are the main and most pernicious source of our problems, she cannot have my support.

[Prism]

27. I'm curious about Biden and Gore. The Party is getting skittish

I'm wondering what happened that the Establishment is now starting to at least entertain second thoughts about Clinton. Especially after they have gone so far and done so much to protect and promote her, rigging everything as much in her favor as humanly possible. I cannot imagine, barring any devastating development, the e-mail thing is really going to be that problematic.

And yet, the calls for Biden are getting louder, Gore insiders are muttering.

What's changing? What do they know that we do not?

[PatrickforO]

63. They know their donors are getting uneasy about Bernie.

[HFRN]

31. as much as you feel we OWE your candidate OUR vote, we don't

and if you really feel she's the most qualified, tell her she can just train her replacement, like American tech workers did with their H-1b replacement

[restorefreedom]

49. baBam!! nt

[artislife]

69. +1 nt

[arcane1]

32. I doubt your sincerity in this quest.

It looks like another excuse to label Sanders as "fringe" and maintain that fiction in order to discredit his growing popularity.

My opinion.

[MuseRider]

38. LOL

Jumped right out at me too.

Please tell me these things since you do not support the inevitable one.

Your support for the fringe is not required, just your input about why you are bothering.

[DesertFlower]

34. i'm not rejecting her, but i'm supporting bernie.

if she's the nominee she will get my vote.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. She needs to be more decisive

She is coming over like a weather-vane. Seeing which way the wind is blowing. A president needs to be firm. Lessons should be learned from the 2008 election.

[CanadaexPat]

41. She's just a lousy campaigner.

I don't like her positions on many things and supported Obama because I thought he was less likely to start a war with Iran, but as a practical matter I think she's just a lousy candidate. I feel this election is a Dem's to lose, and I think she'd be just the one to do that.

[MH1]

43. Clinton has good policy positions and I believe she is a good person. BUT

I think she has vulnerabilities as a candidate. I think she will be less effective as a leader than my first choice candidate - Martin O'Malley, and probably even than Bernie Sanders (who I support on the most positions). Also, stuff like the email server leave me shaking my head. Don 't say I've fallen for the right wing spin or something - I work in technology. I don't know how in the world she thought she could do that and not have it be an issue. OTOH, maybe she got bad advice. I'm sort of open-minded but it's tough for me as a tech person to see it from her perspective. And easy for me to see how it can and will be spun against her.

On this site, I would probably never support her because some of the posters I have the biggest problems with are people who host or hang out in the Hillary Clinton group. I was recently blocked from there for objecting to a poster using the term "Berniebots". Doesn't really bother me too much but ensures that if I ever decide to support Clinton, I will find another place on the internet to post about her.

It's a shame too, because I have good friends IRL who are fanatical supporters of Hillary, and some of her supporters here are posters I always liked a lot and respected a lot - until they started adopting some of the bad behavior of their group-mates. (Not that all other candidate supporters are saints. There are a few in other forums who are just as bad. I just find the overall atmosphere- smugness and sense of "it's her turn!" - worse in the Clinton group.)

But I just think Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders would make a better President. I think O'Malley has the best executive track record and is strongest on my top issues. Sanders has the best progressive track record and checks more boxes for general positions. I think O'Malley is very electable if he could ever get traction and attention in the media. He is not a "fringe" candidate by any means, but doesn't have the name recognition yet. He may not be able to get it this cycle, with Clinton and Sanders sucking all the air from the room. But he's young enough that I won't consider the effort wasted if we can just bump that number up a little bit. For O'Malley, there can be a next time. Although I'd really like it if it were this time.

[azmom]

45. Is your sig line, a real quote from Hillary?

[840high]

48. I must say your sig line made me laugh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Start here: January 26, 1992, right after the Super Bowl ensuring a larger audience...

I can remember how shocked I was that 60 Minutes would run what was essentially a campaign ad. This was almost comical and shows how Hillary put on the Arkansas trailer park accent when it was to her advantage even back then.

I think it's pretty safe to say they both lied their asses off while they were slandering Gennifer Flowers in this interview.

Since then it's just been one fucking slimy thing after another. And now handing over the server after having it professionally cleaned makes me want to take a shower with lye soap and a stiff brush.

[CentralMass]

54. Why did people choose Senator Obama over her in 2008 ? I think it is just

a matter of personal preference. I confide that I supported her in 2008.

I do think that she s a very savvy old school politician who is running the traditional play it safe campaign. She won't commit on certain issues because at this point, she doesn't have to. However it leads to the blank canvas phenomenon where people paint their own portrait of the candidate. Bernie Sanders commits on just about any issue when asked.

[PatrickforO]

60. Dear Sylvia,

What is my opposition to Hillary Clinton you ask.

I wanted to give you a thoughtful answer. Hillary Clinton lost me a few years ago. Quite a few, actually. In 1992 when she was tasked with creating a national health care plan, she was told by an adviser that most Americans wanted a single payer system, and she replied, "Tell me something real." Unfortunately, my health care situation IS real. I have an HMO and pay around $800/mo for my wife and myself. It is rationed healthcare; if I have to have surgery I have to pay out the nose, and the copay gets bigger every year while the coverage goes down. The HMO is very dedicated, not to me as a patient but to cutting costs.

You know, I pay a lot of taxes, and this is supposed to be an 'exceptional' country, a great experiment. Well, I want some of my tax dollars used to fund Medicare for all Americans. I'd even be willing to take an increase in taxes; I KNOW healthcare costs money, and I'm OK with paying for it, but I would rather do that with higher taxes than premium payments for some insurance company/HMO, because the profit motive (or quest to retain earnings) seems to me in direct conflict with my welfare as a patient. Clinton is not for Medicare for all Americans. Bernie is.

We've had a 'forever war' that has affected hundreds of thousands of Americans and killed God only knows how many Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis, and Clinton voted to give Bush the power to wage that war. We've spent trillions in the red for it and have nothing to show for the effort, except ISIS, which came to be as a result of de-Baathification in Iraq after we conquered that unfortunate country.

In 2008, I was disappointed in the way Clinton's campaign people sniped at each other because to me that suggested a lack of leadership on Clinton's part.

Then, when Clinton was SoS, she engaged in what she herself called 'economic statecraft' and set up the Transpacific Partnership. Like NAFTA, the TPP will cost hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs - the kind you can raise a family on and the kind that have good benefits, maybe even pensions. And these will be replaced by lower paying service jobs.

This time around, Clinton seems to be running a lackluster campaign, and reminds me of nothing as much as a wind sock or a weather vane - always waiting to see which way the wind blows before she commits to any real position. Her campaign thus far has been an exercise in evading issues that I care about. I really don't know what she stands for, and not knowing that makes it difficult for me to stand with her.

As to the high cost of college, I have four kids and three have student loan balances at this point averaging around $20K. I'm not seeing Clinton mentioning that much. Bernie feels that state college ought to be free. I agree with him, because if we don't invest in our children and grandchildren, then our economy will falter and our middle class will disappear for good.

Clinton has not come out strongly for strengthening Social Security. Instead she mouths the words 'entitlements' as if they were somehow evil. I started working when I was 15, and have paid into Social Security full-boat for over 40 years at this point. But the establishment wings of both parties are telling me that I need to wait to retire because we can't afford to pay me. Bernie wants to strengthen Social Security. I've heard nothing definite from Clinton.

It also bothers me, and has for years, that big corporations like Paccar, Wells Fargo, GE and many others get to 'offshore' trillions of dollars that remain un-taxed while our infrastructure crumbles. It bothers me that CEOs make $15 or $20 million a year, and their workers languish with barely enough to pay the bills. I hate that these leviathans are allowed to systematically destroy the very earth we all depend upon. Bernie wants to amend the corporate tax code to tax those profits, and he wants to make some serious inroads against global warming. He is committed to redistributions of wealth that will put all that money back in the economy, because wealth inequity is worse than it was in 1929 and our middle class has almost gotten squeezed out of existence. Bernie wants to deal with that. Clinton doesn't seem to have a position.

Last, I genuinely believe that if Clinton is elected president, she will be manipulated into another stupid, immoral and ill advised war, this time against Iran.

Now, people including yourself keep saying Bernie is unelectable. They said that about Obama. They say Bernie is a socialist but he's a New Deal Democrat more than anything. Or maybe a Social Democrat in the northern European sense. I support him because I'm sick of my tax dollars going to benefit the Wall Street guys and the military-industrial complex instead of me and my neighbors. I think with Bernie we have a chance to change that and make this country what it should be. Millions of people are getting on board with Bernie, particularly the 80 million strong millenial generation. I believe Bernie can win, and more importantly I believe the American people can win with Bernie. I don't get that feeling about Hillary Clinton. To me she seems empty in some fundamental way.

[artislife]

72. Thank you

I feel your heart in this response.

I stand right next to you.

[azmom]

80. Yes, yes, yes. She seems empty in some

Fundamental way.

[malokvale77]

61. The dead give away with your post...

"historic candidate" and "fringe candidates".

It brings to mind "conservative stand up comedy". It doesn't sell.

[Zorra]

65. Here ya go, ma'am: DLC's PNAC Document - Hillary Clinton On America's Strategy

From the Council on Foreign Relations' publication.

BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.
snip---
t a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.
snip---
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people's lives -- whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation's fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/09/dlcs-pnac-document-hillary-clinton-americas-strategy

From SwampRat in 2008: Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 02:26 PM
Original message
Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Before you vote for Hillary Clinton, please consider the following:

Research Questions:

Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?

Will electing her to be the President of the United States not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also damage the U.S. Government for generations, if not forever, thus transforming it into a permanent police state or empire?

Data:

1. Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

2. Hillary Clinton praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed (see below).

3-5. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

1. Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

2. Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&co...

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

3. Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism&quot , represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

4. Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"
(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

5. Progressive Policy Institute

"Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

________________

Conclusion:

You decide.

Will a vote for a PNAC-PPI-DLC candidate, not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also empower those who will continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Finally, will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5222518

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251495072

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Because she's a politician who voted to have people killed to further her ambitions.

She is a politician of the worst sort. One who will do whatever she thinks is necessary to satisfy her ambitions.

I will not support her or vote for her.

[Ino]

75. Ditto what everyone else has said...

Last edited Sat Aug 15, 2015, 09:26 AM - Edit history (1)

... the Iraq vote, the trade deals, the lies (being under sniper fire! dead broke!), how she grossly mismanaged her campaign in 2008, her arrogance, refusal to take a stand on issues, her refusal to debate in a timely manner, etc. etc. etc.

While I think Hillary would be halfway decent with regard to social issues (as long as the wind is blowing in that direction), she might as well be a Republican when it comes to war, trade, coddling corporations & banks, and any other economic matters.

It appears you are very excited about having a female president, and I think maybe that has led you to ignore what she really is. I'm not willing to suffer the damage she would do for the sake of a female president (I am female). In fact, I'm sure I'd end up embarrassed and ashamed of having voted for her.

I think Hillary is unelectable. She is saddled with baggage. To most people, I believe she comes across as cold, phony, calculating, & unlikable. Republicans will turn out in DROVES to vote against her, and most Democrats who do cast their vote for her will hold their noses and think of SCOTUS while doing so.

Sanders is gaining followers at an exponential rate as they become aware of him. Hillary will be left in the dust once the debates begin, which is why she is delaying them as long as possible. Which is why she is having little meetings (preferable lucrative ones) with selected followers, instead of meeting the public as he does. Just another example of her calculating nature, keeping info from the public, keeping quiet lest she say the wrong thing, counting on her name recognition.

I am worried that your fervent wish for a female president would lead you to trust Hillary as being THE ONE. I do believe she is relying on people like you, and chuckling to herself. You seem like a nice person, and it's sad you are being duped.

This donor list tells me all I need to know.

[restorefreedom]

81. what a great graphic.

and a classy response to the op

you did bernie proud imo.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. SylviaD it goes back to 2008

I think that again the campaign is not being run adequately - as in 2008. Hillary is coming over as being indecisive on key topics. It seems that Bernie puts something forward and then her campaign says yes let's do that. Her past votes will haunt her. If she is the Democratic nominee then she really needs to get rid of all her present team and hire people who will help her to win.

[ericson00]

82. People still do not want to accept and honor the fact that it took moderates to bring back the Party

after 1968-1988, when our electoral record matched the GOP's popular vote record from 1992-2012; one for six.

[PatrickforO]

83. Yeah and look where that's got us.

With a couple of notable exceptions our candidates are milquetoast empty suits who don't seem to stand for anything except more legislation favoring corporations while our middle class languishes in a sea of debt, we are fighting a forever war, an agency has been created to spy on us, our children are buried under mountains of student debt and have very little chance of having lives as good as ours, and wealth inequity is so gross that we are in danger of becoming a third world nation - a banana republic with nukes. Our public schools have become so dumbed down that our kids don't even know about the Holocaust or even how our own government works. Millions of us still don't have health care, and they are talking about cutting Social Security. Unions have been busted, pensions are things of the past, and huge numbers of children live in poverty. Twenty five million Americans go hungry every month, and there's a huge underclass who works two or more jobs and STILL can't make ends meet. And let's not forget that our capitalist system is literally destroying this world to earn a profit. And, of course, don't forget the vaunted 'free trade' which has cost America hundreds of thousands of good jobs - the kind you could raise a family on.

We allowed the New Deal to be wrecked, and it was the only thing that made life worth living for most people. Now maybe 40% of Americans live in a sort of hell.

You call that something I should 'accept and honor????' These 'moderates' have ruined this nation. I'm sick to death of being told that things that help me, that I want, I cannot have. I'm tired of my party moving further and further to the right just because the GOP has become crazy fringe right.

It's time to take a sharp left turn Ericson.

[quickesst]

84. As you may have...

...already gathered, there are quite a few people here whose irrational hatred of the Clinton's far outweigh the support they profess for Bernie. Hillary will make a fine president, and most democrats understand she is the only one in the field who can handle the repubs when it counts. Also notice the talking points expressed in the language of hate closely parallels that of the right wing voters, media, and politicians. Reaching across the aisle you might say.

[Ino]

86. As I guess you overlooked...

the OP asked why people do not like Hillary, not why they profess support for Sanders. So it's rather disingenuous to point to the answers as evidence that "irrational hatred" of her outweighs support for someone else.

Dislike of someone (however intense) is not necessarily irrational. I see well-reasoned replies, based on facts. I have to laugh when someone discounts all arguments put forth with "you're just a hater!!!!!"

Then you suggest anyone who doesn't like Hillary must be... you might say... a Repuke.

Frankly, this all sounds a bit unhinged.

(FWIW, I think the Repukes would actually love another Clinton in the White House. As Alan Greenspan wrote, "I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while" and Hillary would follow that grand tradition, although less charismatically. Look at her donor list! Hillary getting the Democratic nomination would be a win-win for the right.)

[quickesst]

94. There are...

...a lot of people who don't like Hillary for what they believe are good reasons. They are at least respectful to those with opposing views. Some, those I refer to, are obvious haters. I believe one could take five posts from them, and five posts from free repukelic, mix them up randomly, and not many could tell which post came from where. The OP is weighing both sides to make an important decision. I'm merely pointing out that there are the "well reasoned", and then there are........

[jfern]

87. 2 big ones

First is foreign policy.

She voted for the Iraq war without reading the intel report. Bob Graham, Chair of the Senate intelligence committee said everyone who could should read it. He of course, voted no. She voted for a $2 trillion war, but was too lazy to read that.

Then she voted for the Iran war (Kyl-Lieberman). The Bush administration declined to do all the warmongering that Hillary allowed them to.

Then she supported arming all the jihadists who later became ISIS, which wouldn't have existed without that Iraq war she voted for.

Second is supporting Wall Street.

They haven't paid for causing the 2008 Great Recession. She opposes reinstaing Glass Steagall, the repeal of which, championed by her husband, caused the Great Recession. She supports further financial deregulation with TPP. She pressured other countries to do fracking.

[Ichingcarpenter]

89. Chapter 6: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.”

From ABC News:



The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.”

But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.

Here’s a screenshot of the email from ABC:


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042



You can’t make this stuff up.

[CharlotteVale]

90. Ever since she voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act in

early 2001, I realized whose side she was really on. Along with the other reasons already mentioned.

Her subsequent disavowal was meaningless to me. I want someone on my side from the get go.

[Recursion]

91. Well, from an O'Malley supporter's perspective

I don't think Clinton can unite the party very as well as MO can, and I think even if she wins her coattails would be shorter than MO's would be.

[Jappleseed]

92. War hawk.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

[Autumn]

96. Well reading the replies everyone has posted all of mine so there you go.

[Romulox]

100. IWR, TPP, H1B, Goldman Sachs. Concise enough? nt

[kenfrequed]

102. Policy

Policy for starters. His policy record of what he supports and proposes is far more progressive than Secretary Clintons.

Funding would also be a factor. Since the magnification of the disparity of wealth is so great that it is hard to put my faith and my vote towards a democrat who gets so much money from the wealthy.

I would further the funding argument by pointing out that we need someone to actually go after and regulate Wallstreet and the the banks and I have trouble taking seriously the idea that a person that cashes the checks from them on Tuesday is really going to stand up to them on Friday.

Also, Bernie Sanders has been ahead of his time with every position and every vote he has made. The War in Iraq and gay rights would be just the most obvious of these positions.

[SylviaD]

110. None of you think...

...that sexism may have a tiny role here?

[MelungeonWoman]

111. Damn, SylviaD, you figured it all out.

We thought we had you fooled but it's now obvious we were playing with a professional.

You're right, the only reason nobody liked Clinton is because she is female.

Now, if the DLC could just get Hillary to drop out of the race and replace her with another DLC player with a penis everybody will get on board and Bernie will drop like a fringed hot potato.

Foiled again!

[SylviaD]

113. Your sarcasm isn't necessary. n/t

[MelungeonWoman]

114. Then what's up with that sig line?

Or is it just MY sarcasm that isn't necessary?

[elana i am]

112. some handy dany charts

Last edited Mon Aug 17, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

you've prolly seen them before, but they express what i what to say...





https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwQxzhpjP8Vp1lqfu7hg2m7KLtcdxUC1XzapQx_HXnhxHxCL-1Mg

so far there are exactly two issues i do not wholly agree with bernie sanders on - guns and israel. that's it. 2 issues. for clinton? read the charts, pick an issue and we probably don't agree.

are clinton's votes political expedience or principled votes? doesn't really matter. the real question is why would i support and vote for someone whose political positions i don't agree with? there may be many votes where clinton and sanders vote the same way, but what i can tell you for sure, the big ones that i consider the most important and most telling of their judgment as professional politicians - tpp, iraq war, patriot act, tarp, universal health care, opposing keystone - she's on the wrong side of all of them.