Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"Raising billions won't erase Clinton's scandals or vapid centrism"
Raising billions won't erase Clinton's scandals or vapid centrism
H.A. Goodman
4/24/15
?itok=HhzAkcbu
The New York Times states that Hillary Clinton is projected raise $2.5 billion during her bid for the presidency. As a result, many Democrats feel that Clinton will automatically win their party's nomination for president and win battleground states needed to secure the White House. However, these billions could easily be wasted on a candidate who has too many political arrows directed at her from both sides of the aisle. Nobody in the Democratic Party owns (her) list of ethical scandals...While former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.) and former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) don't have Clinton's name recognition, neither has to worry about an Associated Press lawsuit demanding access to over 31,830 emails.
Wealthy Democratic donors could be backing a candidate who's willing to immediately jettison any cause for the goal of upholding a disingenuous form of centrism. Billions of dollars in donations won't prevent The Economist from publishing a cover with the question, "What does Hillary stand for?" and noting that "For someone who has been on the national stage for a quarter-century, her beliefs are strangely hard to pin down." Unlike Clinton, other Democrats have no qualms about voicing their viewpoints. While Clinton "uttered not a word" about President Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has had no problem saying it would cause "serious damage here in the U.S."
...None of Clinton's potential Democratic challengers for the White House need to use campaign dollars to erase past or future scandals. Also, none of them are shy about taking a stand on economic or social issues. Warren told Wall Street firms to "bring it on" after some investment banks threatened to withhold campaign donations. O'Malley rightfully stated that the presidency isn't a crown to be passed between two families. Webb wrote a 2002 Washington Post op-ed against the invasion of Iraq and is constantly voicing definitive viewpoints on war and foreign policy. Regarding Webb, few people are as forthright as the decorated Vietnam War veteran, and few people have been as vocal in rightfully criticizing America's recent interventions in places like Libya and Iraq.
In contrast, it took Clinton three weeks to make a statement about Ferguson, Mo., one week to address her email controversy, and she still hasn't taken a definitive stance on Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. She "avoids saying anything about Keystone XL," despite its impact on an issue like global warming. During her race for the White House in 2008, Clinton used racially questionable campaign rhetoric against Obama and even Bill Clinton was forced to say, "I am not a racist." Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage, against the decriminalization of marijuana (far more conservative than being against legalization), voted for wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and three of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks. In her attempt to be all things to as many voters as possible, Clinton's favorite book is the Bible and both the Yankees and Cubs have been labeled her favorite teams at different times....
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239907-raising-billions-wont-erase-clintons-scandals-or
H.A. Goodman
4/24/15
?itok=HhzAkcbu
The New York Times states that Hillary Clinton is projected raise $2.5 billion during her bid for the presidency. As a result, many Democrats feel that Clinton will automatically win their party's nomination for president and win battleground states needed to secure the White House. However, these billions could easily be wasted on a candidate who has too many political arrows directed at her from both sides of the aisle. Nobody in the Democratic Party owns (her) list of ethical scandals...While former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.) and former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) don't have Clinton's name recognition, neither has to worry about an Associated Press lawsuit demanding access to over 31,830 emails.
Wealthy Democratic donors could be backing a candidate who's willing to immediately jettison any cause for the goal of upholding a disingenuous form of centrism. Billions of dollars in donations won't prevent The Economist from publishing a cover with the question, "What does Hillary stand for?" and noting that "For someone who has been on the national stage for a quarter-century, her beliefs are strangely hard to pin down." Unlike Clinton, other Democrats have no qualms about voicing their viewpoints. While Clinton "uttered not a word" about President Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has had no problem saying it would cause "serious damage here in the U.S."
...None of Clinton's potential Democratic challengers for the White House need to use campaign dollars to erase past or future scandals. Also, none of them are shy about taking a stand on economic or social issues. Warren told Wall Street firms to "bring it on" after some investment banks threatened to withhold campaign donations. O'Malley rightfully stated that the presidency isn't a crown to be passed between two families. Webb wrote a 2002 Washington Post op-ed against the invasion of Iraq and is constantly voicing definitive viewpoints on war and foreign policy. Regarding Webb, few people are as forthright as the decorated Vietnam War veteran, and few people have been as vocal in rightfully criticizing America's recent interventions in places like Libya and Iraq.
In contrast, it took Clinton three weeks to make a statement about Ferguson, Mo., one week to address her email controversy, and she still hasn't taken a definitive stance on Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. She "avoids saying anything about Keystone XL," despite its impact on an issue like global warming. During her race for the White House in 2008, Clinton used racially questionable campaign rhetoric against Obama and even Bill Clinton was forced to say, "I am not a racist." Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage, against the decriminalization of marijuana (far more conservative than being against legalization), voted for wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and three of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks. In her attempt to be all things to as many voters as possible, Clinton's favorite book is the Bible and both the Yankees and Cubs have been labeled her favorite teams at different times....
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239907-raising-billions-wont-erase-clintons-scandals-or
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I acknowledge her strengths, AND her weaknesses. This of course makes me a mud-flinger because I want a better choice.
