Why aren't Hillary supporters bothered by her support of outsourcing? Why are they not bothered by

[saracat]

her currying favor with the lobbyists? I want to know why they aren't bothered by her health care program funded by "tax credits" and her having a "mandatory"provision for this insurance. She said she can "envision a day when we will have to show "proof' of insurance when we apply for a job. I do not get why some support her. I met with some of her supporters this weekend and they told me that they don't like what she represents either! One gave as a reason that they think it is "inevitable" that she will get the nomination and they want to be on the right "side". Another said they just wanted a woman candidate but they wished it wasn't her! These were her supporters ! Tell me why are people lining up behind her if they don't like what she stands for? I just do not get it!

[pnwmom]

1. I haven't picked a candidate yet, but I don't expect

that I will agree with ANY candidate on EVERY issue. So it's a matter of looking to see who I'm comfortable with, and who I think is strong enough to beat the Rethug candidate.

[saracat]

3. I don't expect to agree on everything with a candidate but Hillary is so far apart from the others

on major issues.And then there is the issue of her support by Rupert Murdoch.I just can't understand those who do not support her views supporting her!And the polls for the General Election indicate she is not the most electable Dem either. I just do not get this.

[pnwmom]

76. Look at Obama's and Clinton's records in the Senate.

They're practically identical.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I was talking to one of her most prominent supporters in the state recently

And she said that she was still wavering over whether or not she should even support her due to her high negatives. I don't get it. If you don't fully believe your candidate can win in the General, then why support him/her in the Primary when there are other choices who have PROVEN to be more electable? :shrug:

[saracat]

6. That is EXACTLY my point. I have afriend who has given her mega bucks and bundled a whole lot more

and they don't really like her positions and are nervous about her negatives.

[gateley]

11. What is their explanation, then, of why they ARE supporting her? nt

[saracat]

15. They act as though it is "inevitable" and they want to be on the "right' side.

Some want a "woman" at all costs.Others feel they "owe" the Clinton's. This is all I can gather.I am still asking why!

[gateley]

45. Hmmm. Interesting. nt

[beaconess]

65. Has it occurred to you that her supporters simply think she would make the best president?

Just like you seem to see Edwards. And just like Obama's supporters see him. And Kucinich's supporters see him, etc.?

[saracat]

85. But why? They do not say why. Edwards and Obama have positions that

supporters can defend.Hillary's supporters claim ,often, not to support their candidate's positions,and still support her and I still question why? I always am given an answer when I ask why Obama , Edwards, Richardson or Kucinich. Hillary is the only candidate whose supporters refuse to give an answer about.

[beaconess]

100. You have never seen a Hillary supporter give substantive reasons why they support her?

Wow. You really can't be that uninformed, can you? Could it be that you're simply not interested in what any of them have to say?

[leveymg]

21. Simple. They expect to get the last jobs in America before the lights get turned out.

Good night, Hill.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Who's more electable than HRC?

I'd like to see some head-to-head matchups. With the exception of Rasmussen, every poll I've seen has shown her as the best-overall general election candidate in head-to-head matchups. The "unelectable" business is something of a right-wing attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[saracat]

8. All the polling on the General Election has both Edwards and Obama doing better against the GOP!

All leading democrats are besting the GOP but Hillary has the smallest margin.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. "All" the polling? That's strange.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

VS RUDY:
HRC: +3.5
BO: +0.4
JE: +2.0

VS MITT:
HRC: +11.7
BO: +11.4
JE: +13.7

VS FRED
HRC: +9.0
BO: +9.0
JE: +12.3

Yeah, Hillary's getting her ass kicked. So unelectable. :eyes:
(and like I said, toss out Rasmussen and Edwards drops considerably, as HRC picks up a bit)

[saracat]

19. John Edwards is doing better. I did not say she was getting her ass kicked.

I said all the Dems were doing okay.She is not the most "electable".

[Kelly Rupert]

22. John Edwards only has a meaningful lead in one matchup,

and that's based off the strength of one poll in which he rather bizarrely has a 21-point lead, instead of the 11 and 9 he has in the other two. I'd chalk that one up to the relative newness of Fred's campaign; people simply don't know much about Thompson yet, and that shows in the wild swings head-to-heads show from poll to poll.

Edwards isn't really "doing better," nor can you say Hillary is not the most electable. She's the most consistent in the polls, and has been all campaign.

But if you want to believe that Hillary is less electable than Barack Obama or John Edwards, go ahead. Just don't claim that polls show what they don't.

[saracat]

26. In what you posted Edwards does better than Hillary against either Fred or Mitt.

But there are many other polls out there that show Obama and Edwards consistently faring better with the general public than Hillary.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. Meaningfully, I said. As in,

outside the margin of error, which is further increased when you're taking the average of polls.

Not sure what "other polls" you're talking about in which HRC is faring consistently worse, because that is not at all what is actually going on in the data. That page has links to every major poll being conducted.

[kenfrequed]

106. I have no idea

Why you people persist in putting forth three republican candidates that are not going to get the nomination. Rudy and Mitt are both east coasters and too moderate for the republican base. Neither will generate the kind of red meat required for the red staters.

As for Guiliani- Bill Maher is not the only one who has the pictures of him in drag and the 9-11 mobile is really starting to run out of gas.

Romney is a mormon- While that does help in some ways there are still plenty of quarters where that is going to be a considered weird. Plus his views (and Rudy) view on abortion has been too flexible for the religious right.

As for Thompson, I would say late entry Alan Keyes is more likely to surge in the primary polls. Thompson is a hollywood lobbyist that really doesn't have either the policy nor the charisma to pull it off.

I would keep a closer eye on Brownback, Huckabee, McCain and Keyes. The may look low now but I promise you that one of them is going to walk away with this thing.

Now you might ask what this has to do with the HRC/Obama/Edwards versus polls. Oh wait, it actually should be fairly obvious. Don't bother looking at these polls. They are not worth the paper they are printed on. At best its a flashy news story and at worst its propagandous nonsense.

[kenfrequed]

107. Let me edit a bit

When I say 'one of them is going to walk away with this thing' I mean to say the republican primary. In the general election almost any Democratic challenger can and will win the presidency this time around.

The only two that have a lower chance of doing so would be Biden or Clinton. Both alienate the democratic base and both have a chance of failing to differentiate themselves adequately from their republican opposition in the eyes of independents. And with regard to Hillary, no one has a greater chance of firing up the republican base.

That said even those two would still probably beat any republican put forth, the real question is what kind of Democrat do we want running the country and setting the agenda? A conservative Democrat or a liberal one?

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. Edwards is more electable.

[superkia]

98. As angry as Americans are with our government and their lack of...

concern for the people of this country. If you took a poll now, you would get different results than if you took it after the debates between the two parties. If you put the democratic candidate that some call unelectable, up against any republican, America would be all over Dennis Kucinich. That guy is speaking for the people and against the corporations and corruption. His voice voice on a national stage like that without the media having a chance to hide him, he would crush any republican that stood next to his 5'7" frame.

So I think we can all put aside the who will beat a republican and vote on who we think is best for us, the people! I know I am probably the minority here but I see Clinton as being one of our weaker chances against a republican. I think she would probably be one of their best chances at a republican victory. Clinton may be able to beat them because everyone is giving up on their candidates and already saying they will vote for her as a default choice if shes the candidate but I think we are better off debating facts and finding out who is the best candidate for the people, before it comes to choosing a default.

[Lugnut]

105. I don't get it either

I don't understand how anyone could support a candidate they really don't like simply because they've been told she's electable. I haven't chosen a candidate yet but I've eliminated Hillary from my selection process. She isn't saying anything I want to hear and I don't think she's electable.

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Hillary's "support of outsourcing" is a willful misinterpretation.

I don't see anything wrong with her actual views on outsourcing--that it can be harmful and we ought remove incentives for it, but that it also cannot be realistically completely stopped.

Her mandatory insurance is not as good as single-payer healthcare, but at the same time it's better than what we have now. Uninsured people are not only gambling with both their health and a bankruptcy, they're costing everyone else money while they do so.

She's not my favorite candidate--or even in my top three--but I'd gladly support her in the general election.

[saracat]

13. I posted her quote on outsourcing elsewhere on DU and let me tell you the

attitude of "get real, it isn't always bad and "deal with it" doesn't play well with someone like me who has had their entire life turned upside down by a husband's outsourcing.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. Not all bad things are realistically going to be stopped by government intervention.

The government cannot force US businesses to only hire US consulting firms or only contract with US factories. We can remove the tax incentives companies currently have for doing so, and HRC has declared her intent to do so. But we can't very well stop outsourcing altogether. If you refuse to vote for her because she admits that, that's your right.

[saracat]

27. That is only one of the reasons not to vote for her in the primary.

[saracat]

28. I still would like to know why some support her without liking her positions!

no one seems to want to answer that question. I wonder why?

[Kelly Rupert]

34. I think it's a matter of people

deciding that she is, overall, the best candidate. They may find a few points of contention, but they find many more in which they agree with her. They also may believe that she would be best able to work with Congress, and thus accomplish more good than her less-experienced competitors. They may believe that her experience gives her better judgement for the issues which will arise in future. Who knows?

She's number four on my list. I could give reasons why she's below Obama, Richardson, and Edwards in my mind. I could also give reasons why I'd be happy to vote for her in the general. You'd be better off directly asking those people who support her despite finding all of her positions offensive. It seems few of them are on this board.

[saracat]

37. Thank you for an intelligent , well thought out answer.I have asked some and I posted the answers

I was given.I hoped to get others from DU. I might yet.One never knows!

[Ninga]

90. I never ever thought, that i would have a chance to cast a vote for a woman president, and

find that I can not.

I think that is what so many progressives are struggling with.....it's not that she isn't perfect.....it's that what you see is not what you get. i.e. her co-author of the flag burning admendment achieved what???

the dear departed Molly Ivans once said........a presidential candidate needs to have an Elvis factor.....and without it.......John Kerry wasn't able to put up the kind of numbers that would overcome election fraud.

Our nominee must win decisively so there is no chance of chicanery.

It is not enough to be smart, prepared and experienced....ya' gotta have the Elvis factor.

Sen. Barbara Boxer has it.

Sen. Jane Harmon has it.

Sen. Mary Landreau doens't

Sen. Olympia Snowe doesn't

The question of the day is.....does Hillary?

[lapfog_1]

44. However, the government could at least do business with firms

that hire only American workers and American Contractors. After all, it's our tax money being used to buy services and goods. Hillary is also on record as supporting a large increase (60 percent) in the number of H1-B visas to allow more foreign high tech workers to work here in the US. I'm an currently out of work software engineer. At my last company, 60 percent of the domestic engineering employees were from other countries AND they had an even larger number of engineers in India. Almost all of them (the US based foreign workers and the workers in India) made significantly less money than US citizens with similar resumes and skills.

[Horse with no Name]

5. I read a post here on DU today

and it literally made me click off and go do something else.
I get the perception that there are MANY paid trolls (as well as disruptors) on this site promoting Hillary.
She is the Conservative wet dream.
But the post today basically indicated that IF Hillary wins the primary...the ones of us who disagree need to find another place to congregate.
The attitude was kind of like the feeling I felt after the 2004 election, you remember the one--"Get over it".
It left such a vile taste in my mouth that it made me wonder since she is for all practical purposes "our" candidate, there isn't really any need to push for a better candidate--one that is more representative of the progressive vote.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Believe it or not,

some people with opinions differing from your own came to hold those opinions through their own thought processes. Perhaps you might consider listening to them, rather than shutting them out as "paid operatives."

[Horse with no Name]

16. With all due respect

:eyes:, I am not going to make my decision based on opinions of people of whom I have no idea of their agendas. I don't NEED to be swayed, I have read her stuff.
I.do.not.like.her.or.what.she.stands.for.
An internet message board won't change that.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. ...if you have no desire

to listen to people and see why they believe what they believe, why are you discussing politics?

[Horse with no Name]

42. There is A LOT more to DU than listening to

people pushing their candidates for their own agendas, don't you think?

[Pawel K]

78. I would love to hear her supporters explain why they support her

but they simply do not want to or can't explain it.

Look at all these replies, do you see a single one that states why they support her? I can't find a single fucking one (excuse my french). That's what is driving me crazy, I simply can not understand this. I've asked this question to many HRC supporters here in the last couple of months, as soon as I asked that question I would get no reply. Same thing will happen here.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Yes, but that doesn't mean there are no paid operatives.

Maybe you're a real Hillary supporter. That doesn't mean there are no paid operatives here working for Hillary, and it's not necessarily anything she knows about. There are a lot of groups with agendas to push various candidates. The GOP is pushing Hillary because they think her high negatives will cause her to lose.

Your profile shows you weren't here in 2004 while Horse With No Name was, and so was I. There were paid operatives then and now and there will be many more when the primary season heats up. People have learned to get their post count up to 1000 as fast as possible so they seem like they've been here a good while when they really haven't. It's easy if you just do 1000 K&Rs. Then they can post whatever they're being paid to post and we don't know when they registered unless we take the time to look at their profiles.

How often do any of us check profiles? I looked at yours because I didn't think you were here in 2004 and then I looked at Horse's because I thought s/he was. I probably haven't looked at a profile in six months or more, before tonight. In the early years at DU, your post count next to your name was your actual post count; it didn't stop at 1000. You could tell who'd been here a long time then without looking at their profile.

[Kelly Rupert]

32. The funny thing about the internet is, what you know isn't always so.

I've been here in one name or another since 2003.

I originally joined after coming across Dean's campaign, and finally deciding that I wanted to talk about it with people on the Internet. I mostly lurked, though occasionally participated in the ridiculous "CLARK IS A REPUBLICAN TOOL NO DEAN IS CRAZY NO LIEBERMAN IS A REPUBLICAN NO EDWARDS HAS NO EXPERIENCE NO GEPHARDT'S EYEBROWS ARE FLESH-COLORED" discussions, but after Media Whores Online went to pasture, DU became the center of my political universe.

I've changed login names three times, each time because I made a few enemies, and I was tired of engaging in the same flamewars with the same people over the same things. It's refreshing to be able to come at a board with a blank slate and no preconceptions as to what you "really mean" by your posts. That's the flipside of having a recognized name, you see--xenophobes might know you're not an "outsider," but at the same time they think they know your angles. Each time I "quit," I changed my email address to a nonsense one, changed my password to a random scramble, and logged out. Best to let old names die.

I took a hiatus after '05, the board then was rather monotone. There was only so much "Kerry Didn't Really Lose" I could stand, and, with nothing else to discuss, everything kept turning to tinfoil. After '06, I rejoined again, since the new Democratic majorities would put a new spin on every old issue.

Don't tell me about the way this board works, please. I've been around for a while.

That aside, lay off the paranoia. DU may be the center of our political universe, but it's barely a blip in the grand scheme of things. And every single post I've seen declared the product of a paid operative...well, any guerilla marketer would be embarrassed by such a thing, really. People try to play kingmaker here sometimes. It doesn't mean there's anyone behind them.

[saracat]

35. I think there is some truth in what you say, Kelly! I don't think DU is important enough to

have "paid operatives" doing much trolling. There may be some but I hardly think it would be a "focal point " of a presidential campaign. I find it interesting what you say about your name changes and getting a "clean slate'. But doesn't that violate some kind of DU rule? But maybe that is just if you are TSed? It is true thought that one would be given a more honest appraisal without "baggage."

[Kelly Rupert]

39. You're only forbidden from rejoining if you're tombstoned,

if I read the rules correctly. Nothing against changing names to shed your baggage, though I admit it might be a bit dishonest--kind of chickenshit of me to run from my own words, eh? Ah well.

[saracat]

40. That is how I read it as well. Anyway it is a very interesting theory you have

Have you notice people who attacked you in a previous incarnation treating you better, or giving more credence to your opinions? Inquiring minds would like to know!

[Horse with no Name]

43. How nice

You can continue to attack the people you don't like, yet they don't have the same advantage because you are too cowardly to stay under the same name. Some might refer to this as having a sock puppet.
I noticed when you started back "this last time"....several times you have attacked my position seemingly without any provocation, so much that I actually put you on ignore when you first came back and was honestly surprised you were still here.
Now that I know you were here before, I guess I need to wrack my brain at your writing style and figure out who you might have been.

[redqueen]

84. Not kind of... VERY chickenshit... and sock puppets are against the rules. n/t

[redqueen]

83. You don't?

I sure do.

[DemBones DemBones]

104. Since you admit to having changed your user name more than once,

all I can go on is what your profile says. Sorry you felt bad that I said you'd only been here since 2006, but there's no need to get on our high horse about it. You made the choice to leave and return under different names.

As for my "paranoia," I think that if you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention. YMMV.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. I don't get it, either. Would I like to see a woman president?

Of course. Do I want Hillary to be president? No.

I don't like her stands on the issues.

[Trajan]

12. I am troubled by that support ...

I expect to change her mind ....

The problem here is this: Many of the people who are 'lining up' behind her dont actually come to DU .... Some do yes, but most do not .... And they have voted for Democrats most of their lives ....

As sad as it may make some DUers ... the inevitability is a fait accompli .... Her candidacy has obviously been strong enough to sway most Democrats in the electorate ....

[saracat]

31. I also don't see as much support among some of the rank and file as is indicated in the "polling'.

My district for instance was "starw polled and went for Edwards.I understand so did So.Cal and Texas.Other areas of the country have gone for Obama and others for Hillary but it isn't as though the Democratic base is as overwhelmingly for Hillary as is being reported.

[eridani]

47. People active in the Democratic party--

--do not necessarily represent people whose participation is mainly limited to voting, and who as a rule are far more dependent on "official" sources for their information.

[aquart]

14. Here's a thought:

Try to find something positive to say about your unidentified, shadowy candidate. As opposed to insulting the intelligence of other Democrats. If your candidate can't stand on his own good points, why do you support him?

Me, I've been for Edwards on labor, but I'm beginning to feel I might be forced to reluctantly vote for Kucinich solely on healthcare. But I don't feel any need to slime any of the brave, intelligent Democrats who are running for the privilege of shoveling mountains of shit out of the Augean stables that BushCo has made of America.

We are choosing among excellent candidates. And whomever we choose, WINS.

[saracat]

18. I am not "sliming " anyone. I would just like to have an answer to the question I ask in the OP

[emilyg]

25. Excellent.

[saracat]

29. Could someone please answer the quesion asked in the OP?

Or even speculate? I am curious.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

38. Dammit. I am not "slime" or sliming. I have valid reasons not to support Hillary in the primary.

Why is that unacceptable to you? And I am curious as to why some support her. My husband was as surprised as I to have a member of a Clinton Steering Committe tell us they can't stand her positions. So I thought I would ask why some people would do that. I guess you don't feel I have the right to question or have an opinion about Hillary.Tough.

[papau]

68. I'm not firmly in her camp, but she would be great as Pres/Dem nominee IMO - but your

positions that she takes layout are not quite what I see.

"lobbyists"?

Edwards (trial lawyers) and Obama (Health ins in 2004 - employees and family of lobbyists now) seem to be as deeply beholden to lobbyists as she is - and indeed until Federal Financing that prohits private financing, that is our system.


"her health care program funded by "tax credits" and her having a "mandatory"provision for this insurance. She said she can "envision a day when we will have to show "proof' of insurance when we apply for a job."

A universal program must have mandatory something - it is not funded by tax credits - and proof of insurance else a payroll tax makes administrative sense for new hires. - Her Medicare like public alternative is single payer and has the GOP shitting their pants - I like that.


Her CAFTA vote and conversion to fair trade over free trade makes her of interest.

Her energy policy is cleaner than Obama's albeit not as well thought out as Richardson's.

Her union support is weak - but is there - Edwards is much better.

Her environment record/support is fine as viewed from the left.

Her econ/tax policy proposals make sense - although I like Obama's removal of the SS wage cap for the payroll tax idea - but Obama says it is just an idea and won't commit to it.

[CitizenLeft]

30. well said.

:thumbsup:

[Trajan]

109. YAY ! ....

Just YAY !

Thanks for the sanity ....

[BootinUp]

41. I read a policy paper on her "support"

she proposed raising taxes on companies that outsource to help pay for education in this country. If you are interested I can find you the information.

[lapfog_1]

46. Actually, it's a proposal to use fees from H1-B visas

for education.

Like somehow *I* am not educated enough! ( I have a BS in CS from a major university plus 3 patents and authored a number of papers, served on IEEE standards committees and so forth )

I'm a prime example of someone who is out of work because US firms would rather hire people in India for $25K a year than hire me at any salary. And would rather hire someone from India to work here for $50K (this would be Silicon Valley, where $50K doesn't get you very far), than hire me with 25 years experience for over $100K/year (which is a low salary here right now)

It's not that there aren't educated people here or a need for more educated people in the field... it's that there are qualified workers from India, China, and former USSR countries who are willing to do the work (software development) for far less than workers here. If I could live anywhere I wanted, I might could compete salary wise (though even living in rural Arizona is more expensive than Hyderabad) with foreign workers, but it would be difficult but doable. But US companies, who have no problem outsourcing to countries around the world, refuse to let people here work in a virtual office. Also, health care here is much more expensive than paying a minimal amount for health care of a foreign based worker.

I tell my Indian co-workers and friends that their day in the sun will be short lived... China will be the next "out sourcing paradise" and African countries will be behind right behind the Chinese.

Education will NOT fix the problem. Increased globalization only leads to the destruction of middle class in the Western World. In the future, you will either be part of the "ownership class" (i.e. own stock in large global corporations... and not just a little stock, a *lot* of it) or you will be one of the working poor (even if you have a formerly middle class job like machinist or bank clerk or even software programmer).

Every country will start looking like Mexico.

[BootinUp]

51. my thoughts

I think you're right it was a fee on H1B visas as I recall.

when you say they don't want to hire you at any salary that seems like an obvious and unnecessary exaggeration. While people from the US IT industry have suffered more in recent years than other sectors, I can safely say that in manufacturing where I have been its a similar story. And while I agree that your individual case probably won't be affected by her proposal, and that it is not some magic bullet, I don't think I said it was.

On the other hand when companies ask for continued increases in H1-B visas and use lack of qualified people in the US as a reason, don't you think this is a good proposal to put forth, don't you think we need more money for education?

I don't think there is a magic bullet for the pain caused by globalization. Government should do more to slow down the loss of these jobs and politicians need to hear more from constituents about it. I was very heartened to watch the Ohio Senate race I think it was, where Sherrod Brown won on a campaign that was very labor focused. Of course that State has been hit harder than most with loss of manufacturing jobs. US politics moves slowly and its not all the politicians fault, public opinion has to shift in order for real change to occur. This country still has too many bozos that think deregulation and tax cuts is all we will ever need and these are same people who rarely miss voting day.

[lapfog_1]

63. Just read your response over again...

And yes, they won't hire me at any salary.

Because they can see my salary history. So the thought process is "we can hire two people from India here on H1-B visas for what he was making in his last job... if we hire him for less he will be unhappy and looking for another job so it's better to simply not make him the offer". It doesn't matter if I say "Sure, pay me 2/3rds of what I was making, I'll be happy with that, or even 1/2.

And making up numbers simply won't work either, because salary information is so easy to come by... not to mention that telling a lie to a prospective employer isn't a good way to establish trust (or get a job offer).

Not to mention that now that I'm an "older" (I just turned 50), they start making calculations based on my prospective length of time with the company and my health care costs (not that I have any current problems, but I did have heart surgery years ago to correct a birth defect).

So yeah, not at any salary.

I'm not old enough to retire or start working as a greeter at Walmart, but I'm too old to be employed at high tech company (apparently).

[broadcaster]

48. Also, where are those who are Dems but who don't support her?

There seems to be a mass silence on any commentary about Hillary, just check
Daily Kos for an example of this. There, anyone who raises concerns is
berated. So, there are no longer any criticisms of her there.

"Tax Credits" for health care mean that you have to pay the bill first, then
wait at tax filing time to claim the expense. Doesn't solve anything for
the poor and working poor who don't have money to start with. But keeps
corporations providing health care
happy. The illusion of health care being offered. Notice what Hillary says
about health care puts burden on the individual but not on the existing
hc establishment. Prove you have health care to get a job, and what if the
plan you have is unacceptable to your potential employer, etc? This is perfect
GOP style health care planning, perfect.

Hillary is too corporate connected, status quo
and triangulating. You can tell that Big Money and Big Media has
decided she will win.

Apparently, debate on her suitability is silenced
by the decision of many who do not support her to keep silent for fear of
being taken to the wood shed for not following the party line.

My personal belief is that a Hillary presidency will damage the country along
the lines of what we are seeing now as Democrats let the GOP run the show and
our tax dollars pay for it all while we are martinalized.

Anyone here feel like they ARE making a difference in how America is run?
Are Dems paying attention and acting on our behalf in Congress after all our hard work?
No, they are not.

What you see from Hillary now and over these years, is what you will get
if she's elected. I cannot vote for it. Apologies to Hillary supporters.

[eridani]

49. It is far easier for Dems to agree on issues IMO--

--than it is for us to agree on strategies. Among active Dems (who, again, are a much more informed subset of voters in general), there are three basic strategies. It's almost impossible to get someone to change their approach to strategy.

1. "Let's look at current front runners and support the most progressive". These folks are mainly going for Edwards, though many ethnic minorities in this camp favor Obama or Richardson.

2. "Let's never stop asking for a pony, even if we'll eventually accept a kitten." DK--all the way!

3. The fear-driven "We must find a cash cow front runner as early as possible, and start marching in lock-step fast. Otherwise we'll fall behind in the money-driven image and sound-bite contest in the general election." I think most active Clinton supporters are in this category. Non-active people who only vote and do nothing else are mostly swayed by name recognition. That would account for Clinton's backers disliking her actual policy positions.

[xchrom]

50. kicking for information

[JTFrog]

52. Cognitive Dissonance.

It's at an all time high.

[BootinUp]

53. Like when

folks say they want a Democrat to win the Whitehouse or the Democrats to control congress but they complain when the candidates run on a platform that can actually win?

[eridani]

54. Like threatening Iran, and continuing to let private insurance kill 18,000 a year? n/t

[BootinUp]

56. There is no politican

that can win the votes and that you would be happy with, admit it.

I do not accept your strawman, suggesting Democrats are "letting private insurance kill 18,000/year". Nor do I believe that a Democratic Administration would handle the Iran situation without careful diplomatic planning and a sound strategy.

[eridani]

110. Unfortunately you are right

We are a nation ruled by imperial thugs, whose relatively ignorant inhabitants tend to think that our corporate elite is going to share the goodies of conquest with us. Too many people are too discouraged to do citizenship, and those who aren't are not yet well organized enough to overcome the right wing noise machine.

And yes, any plan that keeps private insurance in the game is going to kill a lot of people, because it exists for the purpose of denying care as often as possible. Preventing being unable to get insurance at all because of pre-existing conditions is a partial but still inadequate proposal.

And you're right--nobody who wants to change course on imperial domination can get elected at this time. That doesn't mean that I have to like that, or vote for its promoters.

[JTFrog]

58. Not even close.

"Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or consonance among beliefs."

A seminal example of the effect of cognitive dissonance, and in fact an episode that inspired exploration of the theory, revolved around an observation study of the members of a cult who believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. The observation particularly focused on the effect of this belief on the members of the cult, especially the extremely dedicated ones who had given up their entire worldly possessions to follow their belief, when the flood failed to materialize. A rational person would expect that the members would recognize the fallacy of their belief, and indeed it was found that the "fringe" members of the cult dealt with the failure of prophecy by essentially "chalking it up to experience." However, the committed members of the cult were much more likely to rationalize and re-interpret events in the context of their belief, for example by believing it was the faithfulness of the cult members which spared the earth from flood.

One can easily extend these observations to the present-day situation in this country, where we find ourselves facing a stark dichotomy between reason and faith. A large majority of Bush supporters support him because they believe that his faith is the same as their faith. Further, a majority of Americans desperately want to believe in the rightness of their government to lead and protect them. When faced with information that directly negates these needs and beliefs, Bush supporters have no choice but to follow a path of least resistance in re-interpreting the new information to fit their world view. To do otherwise would invite a deep questioning of core values upon which they depend in order to manage their lives in a frightening and ever-changing world. Indeed, if that path were followed to its extreme end, they could well end up as Existentialists, concluding that there is no point in life but to die and neither faith nor reason matter.

[BootinUp]

59. Sure, but maybe I didn't put it well

stated belief "It is better to lose the election with a so-called spine than to compromise policies in order to gain a majority"

stated belief number 2, "We lose elections because we didn't have a spine"

[JTFrog]

62. Again, no.

It's more like: (trying to use simple, not accurate example here - assuming some basic core value)

Democrats believe that they should triumph over Republicans because Democrats stand for all things fair and humane. Democratic candidate A holds some views that would appear to be in opposition of those values, such as profit trumping health care, profit trumping domestic jobs, power trumping peace. Some would see that Democratic candidate A does not stand for the core Democratic values and would reject the idea of supporting that candidate. Others who are stronger in their support of Candidate A, in desperation of their belief that Candidate A represents the ideal Democrat and has the best chance to beat any Republican, will have to re-interpret what they believe to be fair and humane.

I think you and I are talking apples and oranges here.

[Enrique]

55. I'm bothered by many things about Hillary

but if I was a supporter of another candidate, I'd be bothered by some things about that candidate too.

Unless of course it were Edwards, who is perfect. :-)

[wyldwolf]

57. very good answer

One of the things that bothers me about Obama (and his supporters), for example, is their absurd belief that the GOP will play nice with them.

Oh, and that really odd "I was for lobbyists before I was against them, though money from their spouses and lawyers is still ok!"

[Dawgs]

67. I support Obama, and I could care less about how the GOP will play with Obama.

I base my decision on my own experience, and my own feelings.

And, I just love how Hillary supporters get asked a direct question and answer it by attacking another candidate in a childish way. Maybe that explains why they support her.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. I think she is for outsourcing when she's in India, but against it when she's

in America. And for it just briefly during the time it takes to vote in Congress.

So, most of the time, she's against it.

[papau]

69. Tata's contract was to hire in a depressed area of NY - but they brought in folks from India -taught

her a lesson I believe.

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. No kidding. Hillary got fooled,..again?

I didn't know it happened so quickly. Any chance there's a link?

[papau]

71. I have to go but a google should get you the total story - she supported th

programing outsourcing because it was to be a circle with the Indian "consultant" firm hiring in upstate - at this point of perhaps 50 hires there may be a couple non-Indian.

She is not anti-trade or outsourcing - but now at least (since 04) talks "fair trade".

I'd like more union protection comments from her - but she has shown that she is not totally a free trader.

[The Backlash Cometh]

77. Hmm...couldn't anybody sue that corp. for racial discrimination?

[papau]

102. ? - don't think so as they hire anyone - its just the positions are filled via India :-) n/t

n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

112. That doesn't sound like it will hold up to a constitutional challenge.

You see, they still have to pass that green card/worker's permit to come into this country. And if that company can't prove it's properly advertising in the USA to fill the spots with American employees, then it can be challenged.

Why isn't the ACLU working on this one?

[LoZoccolo]

64. Seriously? Because she's way better than a Republican, and is looking strong.

Outsourcing is one of my pet issues as I work in a technology field, so obviously I don't like that aspect of her candidacy. I'm even more ticked at her for claiming she could be a Senator in Punjab; it proudly shows a lack of loyalty towards her constituency.

But there is much more at stake than just that issue. And there is also the thing which I tell other people that I feel I have to follow myself: if I really want action on the issue, I'm going to have to get other voters to take it seriously before I can expect a politician too. The hot-button wedge issues that the Republicans use to divide us and to gain votes are all things that the voters themselves already have strong opinions on; they know how to use this. Within the Democratic Party, there is already a strong base of support for reproductive issues and a growing one for same-sex unions, and our Democratic candidates cannot ignore these issues. But it's difficult to expect that they all fall in line with one position on a particular issue until all the groundwork has been laid for a base of support that they can no longer ignore. I tell this to other people all the time regarding NAFTA and a few other issues on which I'm lukewarm, so I realize I need to follow it myself.

You and I and anyone here are more likely to get what we want appealing to their self-interest by delivering the votes, or an issue that is much more a sure winner having been established that way amongst the electorate, than by begging them to act favorably toward us. Even worse is the act of threatening, because not only do the profoundly disempowered people who take that tactic fail to offer anything positive to the candidates, they also don't establish that anything will come of satisfying them: they could find another issue to threaten over.

[BootinUp]

99. I agree with your view

on how party policy is formed. I basically said the same thing above.

[HughBeaumont]

66. Probably because . . . as indicated by your last go-around on this . . .

. . . some of them support it as well, or at least see it as an undesireable but "inevitable" part of the economy. And to others, the welfare and fate of American workers is just not as important as other issues are.

"Inevitable" . . . where have I heard THAT before?

There are other reasons why my vote will be blank should Madam Windsock gain the nomination, but that's Number One. A true progressive and Democratic candidate should not even talk out of both sides of her mouth regarding the needs of America's workers. She's WRONG on this issue.

[LynneSin]

72. Thank god you pointed that out - I think I'll help get republicans elected instead

:eyes:

I find it ironic that all the anti-hill people are getting their recommendations in for yet another crappy post in hopes to get it on the home page.

Don't bother - I've already alerted on it to hopefully keep it OFF of the home page.

[saracat]

81. "alerted" For what reason? I asked why some support your candidate?

I can't ask questions now? Why don't you just tell me why the things I mentioned don't bother you? Why you support her instead of not allowing questions to be asked?

[rinsd]

91. Why do you support a candiidate who pretends his Senate career never happened?

:shrug:

[saracat]

93. It is okay for you to think that but what has that to do with Lyne alerting on a question?

[Mass]

73. Uhm. She has the same health plan as Edwards (confirmed by his wife in an interview)

and Edwards has virtually no proposition on outsourcing that I know of.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2007/09/19/elizabeth_edwards_hillary_clin.html

I have issues with Hillary's inevitability and certainly do not support her, but, it is kind of funny to see that you attack her on positions that are virtually identical to the candidate you favor (lobbying aside).

[Tellurian]

74. The usual hypocrisy from the OP's perpetual line of dubious charges..

[saracat]

86. Ah still no answer about "why" some support your candidate?

The hypocrisy is usual from your side.

[saracat]

82. The funding of Edwards program is entirely different. He doesn't rely on "tax credits" and he

certainly has taken a position on outsourcing.He is against it and has continually referenced that point.He believes in penalizing those companies that continue to outsource.

[rinsd]

87. That simply is not true. Edwards is using TAX CREDITS to help finance. Its right there in his plan

Second: Government Responsibility. Government also has a responsibility to help families obtain
insurance. Families cannot be left on their own. To help make insurance affordable, Edwards will:
• Offer New Health Insurance Tax Credits: Edwards will create a new tax credit to subsidize
insurance purchased through Health Care Markets, making premiums affordable for all families.
The tax credit will be available on a sliding scale to middle class families and refundable to help
families without income tax liability

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

"He believes in penalizing those companies that continue to outsource."

He believes in removing tax breaks for companies that outsource.

And OMG Hillary has taken the same position.

CLINTON: Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans.

[saracat]

94. His plan does not "rely" solely on tax credits.Where is Hillary's funding ? Where are her rollbacks...

on the rich?" I don't think Edwards plan is perfect either.I would prefer "real" universal health care.

[rinsd]

96. Sigh Hillary is also funding her plan by rolling back Bush's tax cuts

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008557403

yinde O. Chase - AHN Staff

Des Moines, IA (AHN) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton finally released her a $110- billion-a-year national healthcare system. The plan is a revamped version of the HillaryCare package released in 1993.

The plan released on Monday would cover 47 million uninsured Americans by rolling back some of the $54 billion in Bush administration tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and by generating $56 billion in savings generated from streamlining health care bureaucracies. Her plan is praised by some because it does not employ a middle-class tax hike, new bureaucracy or place further burdens on small business owners.

The other half of annual cost for the "American Health Choices Plan" would come from savings that Clinton says she can squeeze from the current health- care system.

So can you stop this ridiculous slamming of nearly the same exact healthcare plan because Hillary's name is next to it?

[antigop]

75. Be sure to check out the Lou Dobb videos I posted last night re: Hillary, h1-b visas , outsourcing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x57242

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x57243

[antigop]

79. crickets....... n/t

[redqueen]

88. Marking this so I'll be sure to check back later...

so I can see all the rebuttals / responses from Hill's supporters.

[OhioChick]

80. Good Points. n/t

[rinsd]

89. Hilary seeks to remove tax breaks from outsourcing companies

CLINTON: Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans.

"I want to know why they aren't bothered by her health care program funded by "tax credits" and her having a "mandatory"provision for this insurance"

So Edwards plan does not involve tax credits for middle class families to help pay for health insurance?

And Edwards plan contains no mandatory provision for businesses to provide/pay for insurance for their employees?

Shit the man himself claimed it would be mandatory that you visit a doctor under his health plan though his plan seems to not contain that provision.

But its explains alot that his supporters seem unaware of his healthcare plans details as he is.

[saracat]

92. The mandatory provision of Hillary's is that she demands you have health insurance.

Edwards included a "mandatory heath and wellness exam for lower rates.Big difference. Hillary envisions a future where you can't get a job unless you produce a card "proving' you have health insurance.Hillary's program is paid for with tax credits and one has to be able to front the insurance in order to be reimbursed through the tax credits.Edwards rolls back the tax cuts on the rich and uses that revenue to fund his program. That is a huge difference
As for her stand on outsourcing.Please.Her implication is that we "deserve " to be outsourced because our kids are so "badly" educated.As another poster has explained , these companies simply do not want to pay American salaries. It isn't that our workers aren't qualified.And then she emphasizes "creating new jobs that can't be outsourced".That fine and dandy. How long will that take? and I'm sure "any " job can be outsourced if it saves the corporate dollar.She doesn't have a damn thing to say about those "educated" persons in their 50's who can no longer get a job.She is writing them off.

[rinsd]

95. Are you even familiar with Edwards plan? Here's a PDF.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

And HIllary's summary http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

"Edwards included a "mandatory heath and wellness exam for lower rates.Big difference. "

Ya know I had thought he had originally misspoke. Guess not.

"Hillary envisions a future where you can't get a job unless you produce a card "proving' you have health insurance."

Edwards envisions a time when you pay thru the nose unless you go to a government doctor. Two can play this BS game.

"Hillary's program is paid for with tax credits and one has to be able to front the insurance in order to be reimbursed through the tax credits."
"Edwards rolls back the tax cuts on the rich and uses that revenue to fund his program. That is a huge difference"

No, you are comparing apples and oranges. Tax credits are not a means of financing, they are a means of reimbursing.

In case you missed it the first time here it is in BOLD

"Second: Government Responsibility. Government also has a responsibility to help families obtain
insurance. Families cannot be left on their own. To help make insurance affordable, Edwards will:
• Offer New Health Insurance Tax Credits: Edwards will create a new tax credit to subsidize
insurance purchased through Health Care Markets, making premiums affordable for all families.
The tax credit will be available on a sliding scale to middle class families and refundable to help
families without income tax liability.

Here's Hillary's plan. Point #2 is something Edwards does not seem to have. Edwards plan also does not seem to offer tax credits to small business while requiring them to provide/pay for health insurance

# Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

# Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

# Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.

# Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

# Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.

[saracat]

97. I disagree with your interpretation.The verbiage on the announcement is interesting as well.Note

the rollback of "some of the tax cuts on the rich" for Hillary. Some? Which? But as I stated earlier,I do not like either plan. I will have to debate this later as I am late for an appointment. But I do want to thank you, rinsd, for at least debating this issue and being well informed. I respect that.

[polichick]

101. People want to be on the winning side...

They're buying the media's story that it's a done deal.

[defendandprotect]

103. "Bothered" . . .. ??? I find it all frightening -- !!!!

[IndianaGreen]

108. Many Hillaristas are members of the investor class, not the working class

As long as their portfolios remain fat, they don't care how those dividends are realized, even if it means that the working class must suffer.

[Steve_in_California]

111. The definition of a Hillary Clinton supporter:

1. Will back a candidate who can't win the general election just to make a political point.

2. Incapable of independant judgment or assessment.

3. Suffers from amnesia-induced euphoria.