Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why you simply MUST vote for Joan of Arkansas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:10 PM
Original message
Why you simply MUST vote for Joan of Arkansas
That’s right, folks: nobody knows the troubles she’s known, and she’ll burn at the stake for your sins.

Since it seems a tad difficult to get answers for why Hillary should be nominated, I did my dead-level best to lay 'em out for us to discuss.

Much as the question gets asked, this is the best I can do for summarizing why her supporters think she should be the nominee. Please chime in with your thoughts, because it simply makes no sense to me.

SHE’S A FIGHTER; SHE WON’T TAKE ANY CRAP FROM THE REPUBLICANS

Well, when it comes to HERSELF, yes. She knows how to get herself elected in a blue state and take care of herself, but her tenure in the Senate has been one of accommodation and building bridges across the aisle. Yes, she popularized the term “vast right-wing conspiracy”, but she hasn’t fought them like supporters would have you believe. Yes, her voting record on women’s rights is good, but so is that of all the others. She has been ANYTHING but a fighter against the right-wing since taking her seat; if one believes this “positioning” will be eventually used for good, there’s simply nothing to base that on except for her word given to certain audiences; her words to other audiences sound quite different.

SHE’S BEEN HORRIBLY MAULED BY THE BAD GUYS AND WE OWE IT TO HER

She’s rich, famous and well connected; we don’t “owe” her the most powerful job on earth. Yeah, she’s been thumped on, but that’s the downside of fame, money and connections. Lefties are far too sentimental about victims, but sucking pity for being put-upon gets tiresome even if the heroine is the pluckiest gal since Molly Brown, and it just doesn’t smell all that authentic as she’s standing there smiling with Rupert Murdoch as he gives her thousands of dollars. Besides, if being a victim is the yardstick, let’s just nominate Susan MacDougal and inaugurate her in a bright red dress; there’s somebody who REALLY got persecuted.

SHE’S INCREDIBLY TOUGH

Yep, when the smoke clears, she’s always there, dusting herself off, taking care of herself and “repositioning” herself for that misty day when she’ll actually fight the good fight. When that day will be is anyone’s guess, but rest assured: you’re a philistine if you don’t take her good word on it. If survivability is a metric, let’s just nominate Mike Tyson; we can’t nominate a Volvo, since any one that’s over 35 would have been made in Sweden…

SHE’S A WOMAN AND IT’S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT

Hell, it’s long-since past time for a woman president, but I’d rather have a person who has the best interests of the most in mind. She is literally the MOST CONSERVATIVE of all the other candidates. The most. Period. (Well, okay; I’m not really sure about all of Richardson’s positions, but then again, neither is he, and I think that pretty much makes it unanimous.) Why should we throw away the chance to stride boldly into a more decent future just to make this point now? Yes, this might also bring some swing or otherwise not-cast votes from a 51% plurality, but do they outweigh the unfavorables? Methinks not.

SHE’S THE MOST ELECTABLE

This is horrendous crap. She’s nowhere near as electable as Edwards or Obama and poll after poll proves it. If one is going to take a risk with an iffy candidate, one should do it for someone who’s truly progressive, not for the most conservative. This tiresome chant of her invincibility is founded on absolutely nothing. So she won a seat against a total stiff in a solidly blue state; so what? So she won reelection against another stiff? SO why-the-hell-are-we-even-still-talking-about-this WHAT? What’s that got to do with the price of Key Limes in Florida?

SHE’S THE FRONTRUNNER

See the last paragraph. This is for people who want to be on a winning team. I’m sorry you have an aching need to belong or be triumphant, but this is 1) way too important and 2) subject to extreme change.

WE’VE GOT TO “SHOW THOSE REPUBLICANS”

This vengeance thirst is the worst reason of all. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about rubbing the reactionaries’ noses in their evil mess by forcing the Clintons back on them. This is MUCH more of a factor than people would like to admit, and it’s infantile. Sure, he was persecuted, but he also brought a lot of it on himself by lying. He also sucked up a lot to the conservatives by thinking (as she does) that somehow they’d play fair in some bizarre alternate universe with a “third way”. Hell, she’d probably take a “fourth way” if someone presented it. Think of the future.

THE REACTIONARIES HATE HER THE MOST, SO WE HAVE TO LOVE HER

This is wrong across the board. They hate Kucinch MUCH more. They HATE AND FEAR Edwards so much that it’s palpable even through the haze of dismissal and derision obvious in the press. They WANT us to run her, and even if they’re wrong, it should tell us something. Even if--by some odd chance--she manages to pull it out, they will have managed to saddle us all with THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of the bunch as a president. They hate her for reasons that have no bearing on the present and future and they’re locked into residual hatred from years of hammering on her. Let that hatred be wasted energy and let’s not join in the folly of obsessive retaliation.

In short (hahahaha) there is NO good reason to support her. Gender is not a valid one, since it would subject EVERYONE to more third-wayish corporatist crap. Sentiment isn’t sensible, since it’d do the same. Electability is a non-issue. Dreams of future liberalism are totally unfounded. It’s all irrational projection, and it needs to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. All that blather and not one actual vote or issue.
And I'm convinced of your conviction that you make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Free trade with Chile and Singapore, confirmation of Rice and Negroponte
Fail though I did, I was trying to be brief.

Dodd, Biden and Edwards all voted against the trade bills.

Negroponte was well known as a puppetmaster of death squads in Central America during Reagan's shining dungeon on the hill of the 80s and Rice was an obvious liar, warmonger, obfuscator and incompetent as NSA Chief before being confirmed as Secretary of State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. K & R ----- You Summed it up nicely.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. I always think strangulation ...
when I hear the word 'triangulation'. But now I wonder if 'auto asphyxiation' might be more satisfying; if you're into that kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yeah, funny how violent, perverse and dangerous sexuality comes to mind when thinking of politics...
Ya can't really call it a "natural act", although there is an odd compulsion to it all...

With all of our self-destructive proclivities, it's truly a testimony to the industriousness and incompetence of the species that we've overrun the place so thoroughly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R -- let's give this post some luv
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. SHE’S A WOMAN AND IT’S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 01:38 AM by cutlassmama
This one was mine.

Quote: PurityOfEssence Hell, it’s long-since past time for a woman president, but I’d rather have a person who has the best interests of the most in mind. She is literally the MOST CONSERVATIVE of all the other candidates. The most. Period. (Well, okay; I’m not really sure about all of Richardson’s positions, but then again, neither is he, and I think that pretty much makes it unanimous.) Why should we throw away the chance to stride boldly into a more decent future just to make this point now? Yes, this might also bring some swing or otherwise not-cast votes from a 51% plurality, but do they outweigh the unfavorables? Methinks not.


55 percent of those polled think America is ready for a woman president.

Ninety-two percent of adults now say they would vote for a woman for president from their political party if she were qualified for the job. This support has increased steadily over the past 50 years.


Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml

Women are more likely to become politically engaged when they see women like them in leadership positions. This year was the 87th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. We NEED a woman president and it's time. If not now, when?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. When one steps up who's A LOT better than this one, that's when.
Just because it's long overdue doesn't mean we should latch onto the first one who's ever been a (somewhat) viable candidate. Besides the EXTREME riskiness of her candidacy in the general election, she's a fellow traveler with the corporatists and is simply NOT the best of the bunch for worker's rights, health care, foreign trade policy, keeping religion out of government, keeping skunks and criminals out of the current cabinet or presenting a more peaceable front to the rest of the world.

If having a woman for the sake of having a woman is the point, then persuade Kay Bailey Hutchison; I'm sure she'd be tickled frilly-pink, and she might even pick up a red state or two. Hell, try Susan Collins, although be prepared for a six week acceptance speech if it's longer than a paragraph. There's always Phyllis Schlafly; she's still kicking around. The Republicans are obviously desperate for a candidate, they might just go for it.

Why risk an election on someone who is by some statistics unelectable and by all accounts a VERY dicey bet? Do we "owe" it to women to such a degree that there's no compunction about throwing it all away and having the next president appoint another couple of forty year-old nazis to the Supreme Court?

At least you're standing up and voicing the hitherto rarely-if-ever-mentioned rationale by which so many are operating; for that, you deserve some respect.

Yes, women are and have been downtrodden, but this election is for what's best for EVERYONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'd vote for Kay. She's from my state. She's not running though. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Is this a joke?
You're not serious here, are you? If so, would you even consider a man with her same policies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Lots of food for thought - and most is fairly accurate
She pretty well lost my vote when she voted for the IWR. Of all people that should have known the real deal with the BS about Saddam's weapons and how difficult it would be to bring peace after knocking Saddam off/out, it should have been her. Then she takes money from those that took part in setting up Bill for all kinds of litigations and accusations?? She and Bill still socialize with the big boys in the repub party.

The media appears to give her all the help they can. She once truly impressed me with what appeared to be honesty and smarts. Has she changed through the years? Is winning all that important? Looks that way. If she is the nominee I will vote for her then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plusfiftyfive Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Very well put!


I would like to ask the Hillary supporters who they they would vote for, among the candidates, if Hillary were NOT running! That probably has been asked, but I'd like to know if they even know anything at all about the issues and where all the others stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grandrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. Worthy and Excellent analysis!
That being said...:hide: (Glad I found "Ignore", hope you are ready for incoming flack!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. I couldn't have said it better myself. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. Very well said..
... I honestly don't understand what motivates the HRC supporters.

She's done NOTHING notable, she would not even be a senator if it weren't for her husband.

Her positions on the important issues are crap. Calling her a moderate is damning with faint praise.

While I don't believe any of nonsense the right wing has ever said to smear her, MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS DO, and those who don't understand how viscerally hated she is by legions of Americans must live in some sort of social vacuum.

Oh well, whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
16. how many of the negative posts are made by undercover republicans?
I have to wonder why so many negative people are on this site... I have never met any people in my dealings within the party like this.... perhaps all any one does on here is bitch and whine...

How many of you whiners actually work to get out the vote? How many of you knock on doors and ask people if they voted on election day? How many have driven someone to the polls or helped them find their polling place?

The only people I have met when out working for the democratic party that are this negative are hard-core republicans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I believe that if there any undercover Republicans, they are probably Hillary boosters
and of the obnoxious kind, not the nice kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That old canard..
Edited on Tue Sep-04-07 06:39 AM by sendero
.... if you don't agree with me, you're "negative".

If you think the war is a mistake, you're "negative".

If you don't see how wonderful the economy is, you're "negative".

If you don't think dismantling the constitution over a dubious terror attack is a good idea, you're "negative".

If you don't want more of the same old crap we've had for 7 years, only under a new boss, then you're "negative".

Go jump in the fucking lake pal, and that's only because I can't say what I really want to say about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. actually your narrow thinking is republican like
if you don't think like me then you are *****

sounds like a damn republican... that is what YOU are saying.... you can complain about the war... I agree...

but you and your type attack your own kind... you do nothing to make a positive stand for anything... you just like to complain and bitch... you are the problem... I will vote for the democratic nominee no matter who that person is... why because I am a democrat... do I get the democrat I want all the time? HELL NO!!... but I do not campaign for the republican by making negative talking points against any democrat...

is it ok to debate the differences? yes.. great but this thread is nothing but negative bullshit!!!!

all the candidates have flaws the republicans will attack... anybody who thinks differently is an idiot... look at how they went after Kerry and his military record... veterans voted for Bush who never served.... like they won't attack Edwards and Obama... they will attack anyone and can spin it just like the person who started this thread... you are playing into the republican agenda... you and your types are morons.... and working for the damn republican party.... whether you realize it or not!!!!

instead of being negative... talk about why your candidate is best and get out a positive word not all this dumb bullshit... tired of hearing it...

people like you should get your own section and bitch... perhaps you will get your blood pressure up and all have strokes...

you say you want to throw me in the fucking lake? why? because I don't believe in negative shit? I work for my local candidates, volunteer and take off every election day to get people in the inner city to the polls... what do you do?

good luck to you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. The second carard...
... that since I don't like HRC I'm a Republican. Fuck that.

Yes they will go after anyone, but guess what? They have a 15 year head start on HRC and her smiling triangulation will not negate that.

I will work for a candidate I believe in, I won't lift a finger for HRC in fact I will do whatever I can to see ANYONE ELSE get the nomination.

That's not "negative", that is refusing to go along with someone who is only marginally better than a Republican when we really need a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Not this one, bucko
Let's get serious here: Hillary is being shoved down our throat by the powerful; to revolt against that and ask for more justification than the vague "she's better" chirping is more than just in order.

I may be many things, but I'm a hardcore liberal and have been for many years. Unlike her, I never had a change of heart on the subject. With age, I've probably become slightly less left, but I'm still WELL left of center.

We have the right to question the unthinking, unblinking and unwavering onrush of the mob, and her people have done a piss-poor job of making her case. Since I think she feels some "right" to power, I rebel against all this as just another example of privilege.

She makes claims that she doesn't even ATTEMPT to back up, and her supporters get huffy if asked for a simple explanation. She says that if another terrorist attack comes (presumably between the determination of the nominee and the general election) that it will OBVIOUSLY benefit the Republicans (certainly not the case in certain circumstances) and that she is unquestionably the best person to bear the standard for us all. Where that last presumption comes from is this: the endlessly repeated BULLSHIT that she's the toughest on the Republicans. She isn't. She's adept at self-preservation and advancement, but she's been anything but a tireless bulldog against them since taking office. Her claim of greater electability for this or any other reason is also utter crap, as explained above.

We have the right to demand explanation for grandiose claims, and she and her supporters have an obligation to explain themselves.

Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true; she's NOT the hardest on the reactionaries. She's NOT less willing to compromise with them. She's NOT the most electable. She IS more beholden to corporations. She IS more friendly to the insurance companies. She IS more bellicose in foreign policy. She IS more friendly to offshoring of jobs and the elimination of American jobs and her trade policy is MUCH more corporate-friendly and unhealthy for American workers. If her being a woman is the issue, I'd at least like people to come out and say it. If vengeance for the Clinton-hunting of the 90s is the issue, I'd like to hear people admit it.

This whole exercise has been VERY ILLUMINATING: hundreds of people have read this thread, yet less than thirty have responded. It's not all that plausible that Hillary supporters haven't been reading it; where are their perspicacious parries to the points raised? If my contentions are correct, it would be an act of political folly to even consider nominating her and it would be a slap in the face of pluralism to not dissent. If I'm wrong, it should be quite obvious to shoot down my contentions. So far I see people pointing out good votes she's made that the others have made, but no minimizing of her bad ones. I see accusations of negative posts being some kind of greasy attempts by agents provocateurs, rather than driven by honest motives. At least one person admits the gender issue.

If these points are so wrong, why are they not being contested? If they aren't wrong, why aren't they being dismissed as inconsequential?

The fact that she votes for the cute fluffy kitten laws doesn't mean spit, especially considering that the other contenders do too, and the fact that she votes for valuable and important legislation that her opponents vote for too doesn't really negate her establishment-friendly record that's so unseemly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
18. She is really from the greater Chicago area
but she speaks in Arkanese when in the South, a NY accent when in the East, and a Midwestern accent when in Iowa. She has her accents down pad, better actor than Fred Thompson.

A woman for all seasons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
20. I don't hate Hillary
But I do wish that Al Gore could be the nominee.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
21. Here's some info I found, proving what a monster Hillary is.
Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Thank you . nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. So what? The others are as good or better on these issues and better on others
I'm hardly calling her some crypto-fascist, but I AM calling her a corporatist and a bit of theocratic fellow-traveler.

Yes, she votes with the decent folk on many issues, but she's FAR from being the most progressive of the bunch, and her record on things like foreign trade are not good at all. Why should we vote for third best? Because people have been mean to her? Because she's female? The constantly floated idea that she can win more plausibly than the other two is hogwash made from bilge-water. People who are impressed by strutting certainty and the kind of posturing she's so adept at are facile and don't understand leadership past the obviousness of demagoguery.

Is "hey, she's not a totally horrible" a reason to vote for someone? I want the best person who's electable, and she REALLY loses on both counts. I don't think she can win, and whether she can or not, the other two main contenders have MUCH better chances. There is no sensible reason to vote for this person, and what I sense from so much of the support is dangerous and childish: a thirst for revenge, some kind of peculiar desire for bragging rights and the constantly denied and under-addressed gender issue.

The personality issue is huge and not really addressed at all: she's far to prone to be cocksure and unwavering and she's far too prone to self-preservation than fighting against entrenched power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
22. Some environmental stuff on Hillary. Bad lady!
Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. & Thanks again. Truth, the only way to real change........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC