The Rising Tide of Populism in the Dem Party Spells Trouble for Hillary

[cali]

Think about these points for a moment:

The majority of voters under thirty view socialism more favorably than capitalism.


Bill de Blasio beat Christine Quinn. A year ago, all the pundits would have scoffed at that happening.

Clinton is firmly anchored to corporate interests- from the banksters to Monsanto

The democratic base is angry about corporate influence and control


The Clinton Foundation will be an issue

The TPP: She's been a major force in crafting this piece of shit


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis Sunday night opened what are likely to be three years of close public scrutiny of the very private, elite, and lucrative shadow of the Clinton foundation — and specifically, the question of what the foundation’s big donors got in exchange for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. MacGillis’ article is a profile of the architect of what he describes as the “transactionalism” at the heart of Clinton-land, his former aide Doug Band, and his role in shaping a singular charitable enterprise. Band maintained, simultaneously, an “executive consulting” firm called Teneo, whose dealings are totally opaque, aside from having let Band spend $8.8 million on an Upper East Side apartment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-clintons-foundation-problem

Polling indicates the Democratic Party is becoming more populist and would more readily embrace someone such as Warren, a prodigious fundraiser in the vein of Obama. Gallup said it found the percentage of Democrats holding "very negative" views of the banking industry rose sharply since 2007, while the percentage of those with positive views fell from 51 percent to 31 percent. The percentage of Democrats who were unhappy with the "size and influence of major corporations" rose from 51 percent to a near stratospheric 79 percent from 2001 to 2011.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/17/Politics-2016-Is-there-a-White-House-bid-for-Sen-Elizabeth-Warren/UPI-15981384682460/#ixzz2kugsnTJ4

Social Security is going to be one of the top issues the primaries and election. Clinton has been less than clear about her position on Social Security.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/10/post-148.html

I think Hillary is out of step with majority dem sentiment on any number of top issues. Iraq was lethal to her 2008 run. this time around, should she run, corporations and her numerous ties to them, will be a big problem for her.

[Laelth]

1. It's encouraging to see the national mood shifting to the left.

Sadly, it's almost surprising to see it happening in the Democratic Party (which has been far too conservative on economic issues for far too long).

That said, many seem to believe that Hillary gets the nomination if she wants it. They may be right. I, of course, am hoping for an interesting primary.

-Laelth

[cali]

2. I think Clinton's plan is pretty solid and pretty obvious

she wants to get so much heavy muscle support before she announces that she appears unbeatable to potential challengers.

I don't have much to base it on but what I put in the OP, but I just don't think she'll be the nominee.

[BlueToTheBone]

110. If she does win the nomination

will you support her fully as our candidate?

[cali]

117. I'll vote for her- puking all the way

is that "fully" enough for you?

[BlueToTheBone]

120. ...

you seem to be a shit stirrer. I'm guessing that you think that's progressive.

I think what I meant, is if she becomes our nominee will you stop posting your dislike on a constant basis? Should she become the nominee, she will bring positive things to the table also and will be a good president and will break the ceiling for the rest of us...51% of the population.

[cali]

123. I'm a woman, but I certainly won't support her in the primaries

because she shares my gender.

I'm guessing that you're just another conservative, corporate supporting dem who joined DU after President Obama was elected.

I don't need to answer your questions.

The positive things that CorpoHillary brings to the table are far, far outweighed by all the despicable crap she supports- like fracking.

And yes, I'm a Bernie Sanders Vermont Progressive. Hey, we even have a real Progressive Party here with elected members of the VT House, Senate and state government.

[BlueToTheBone]

129. Actually, I've been here

since 2001. I had a couple name changes, one when I became press secretary for our democratic candidate. The last name change came with the penalty of losing my post count.

I guess I'm reacting to your deep anger which seem to spew out on every post. For a long time I thought you were a woman, and then lately your posts made me think you were very masculine, filled with testosteroneal (is there such a word) fury.

I do hope we find a candidate that we can all back. I'm so progressive that I've been frozen out of our local party; and I'll take a woman over a republican any day of the week.

On a discussion board, I thought that asking questions was what we did as a way to move dialog. I'm sorry if I offended you though asking too personal of a question. Be well.

[cali]

131. Yes, I'm deeply angry over the corporate takeover of the party. And I'm not the only one

look at polls.

thanks for the post. really. I too hope we can find a candidate that we can all get behind.

Let me pose a couple of questions for you- and please remember I answered your initial question.

Do Hillary's corporate ties and support for such things as the TPP trouble you? If not, why not?

Do you see the corporate influence on the democratic party and dem politicians as corrosive?

[BlueToTheBone]

221. Sure her ties trouble me.

When I saw her in 2007 along with all the candidates running; one thing I saw about her was that she did not sway from her speech. When she was heckled (this was the height of Iraq) I could see her visibly straighten, sort of like a winding up; and she soldiered on ahead. She had a lot of women in her entourage and some men. As a side note, John Edwards speaks literally from the side of his mouth. And Obama has true charisma.

But, in the past couple of years, I have seen Hillary grow. She acknowledges and engages and I think she learns and is changing and I think she cares. I don't believe it is all about power; although I' sure it's very addictive. But, I also think her 4 years as SOS her grow and I don't think that the past years of no new wars and the winding down of the current ones is partly efforts. Susan Rice scares the shit out of me, but so far, she too has surprised me.

Someone down thread mentioned Julian Castro. Now he's interesting choice.

I've been working with a teacher for the past couple of years who talks about anger and what it does to us and how un-useful it is. How it eats us and keeps us enslaved to whatever. (Like attracts like) I think that as Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again keeps us insane? or something? I know that you care deeply and I hope you stay well. Care for yourself, nurture your true spirit and you'll find the next step to do something about the things that trouble you so deeply.

Bucky Fuller (I think) said we must be the change we want to see. Be well

[sabrina 1]

169. Frankly I don't care whether the candidate is a man or a woman. So long as they have a RECORD,

unlike Hillary, of opposing all of the neo-liberal policies, both foreign and domestic that have practically brought this country to its knees, and certainly for millions of Americans, that is where they are due to the Corporate leaders we have been scared into electing over the past number of years.

There are so many great Progressive Democrats who are far more qualified to be President than anyone who, eg, voted for the Iraq War. That was a tragic and fatal error of judgement. I prefer to look at someone who got that most important vote, right the first time.

We don't need to settle on just one or two or even three at this point. But it's exciting to start thinking of some real Progressive candidates. A few, like Elizabeth Warren, have been receiving a lot of attention right now. But there are many others. Ron Wyden eg, comes to mind and Alan Grayson among others.

The OP is correct, the younger generation is much more informed than older generations and not at all supportive of the status quo being as how it has so adversely affected their futures. And many Progressives and Progressive Organizations, and also the Unions, are seriously disappointed in the Dem Party's catering to Wall St and to Corporations in general.

This may be the moment that occurs in history every once in a while, where things have reached a point where real change will happen. If it is not THE moment, we certainly are getting there. Too bad it didn't happen sooner, but better late than too late.

[Laelth]

223. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[RKP5637]

227. YES! As you say!

The OP is correct, the younger generation is much more informed than older generations and not at all supportive of the status quo being as how it has so adversely affected their futures. And many Progressives and Progressive Organizations, and also the Unions, are seriously disappointed in the Dem Party's catering to Wall St and to Corporations in general.

[Veilex]

136. "you seem to be a shit stirrer"

Cali frequently posts allot of commentary, certainly. But I would hope everyone on this board would endeavor to post frequently to discuss (hopefully in rational and civil manner), refine and define... and then go out and advocate, educate and agitate.

Advocate for those who are the least of us. The ones who cannot get an education or assistance due to the gapping holes in the social safety net that class warfare has torn.

Educate those who don't know what is going on and where it's happening. People cannot act or react if they simply don't know whats going on. Encourage those who have been mislead to consider the facts, and hopefully open some eyes. We have an uphill battle on this one, what with the richest corporations and CEOs almost universally aligned against us.

Agitate... disrupt their propaganda, counter it, denigrate it, expose it for what it is. Shine a blinding light on every lie they spew. Reveal those who perpetuate those lies. Promote boycotts of those corporations who corrupt our government, or those who attempt to dehumanize any of our fellow citizens. In general: Be a shit stirrer.

[treestar]

144. No.

And Hillary will continue to be considered doing entirely wrong during her term.

She was also handle the election all wrong. Even if she wins, each slip in the polls will be about why it's her corporatism (whatever that is) that means she's going to lose. Rachel Maddow will also panic that Hillary is going to lose. Then after she wins, they start on how she isn't creating socialist utopia fast enough.

[newthinking]

195. That's Democracy for you

It's too bad that the negative politic media has made the way politics work much nastier. But really, agitating and pushing (sometimes forcefully) is democracy in action. It's absolutely necessary.

Long live Democracy!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

209. This seems like an odd post to me.

There is little hope for a future that will be good for any but a few if we continue on the path that Hillary will follow. If I must vote for her I will, but you seem to think it is wise to follow that vote by saying that it was a good thing.

WRONG

Just because something is necessary does not mean that is is good.

[MADem]

252. Bill DeBlasio LOVES HRC--he ran her Senate campaign.

Wingnuts like Ben Smith and the Gallup poll are the sources for this hit piece essay.

Cui bono, here? Who benefits from tearing Clinton down? Hint, hint--he's lost a lot of weight lately, and he'd love to take on a "lightweight" instead of a heavy hitter like Clinton as the Democratic nominee....

That's where these hit pieces are coming from, and the purity police from the left are doing the right's work for them. Ain't that peculiar?

[cali]

268. Oh, please. People on the left have been disturbed by Clinton's corporatism

and her right wing positions for years.

She's liberal on social issues.

that is not enough.

You haven't been able to dispute anything.

[MADem]

271. Well, gee, when you go to the "Ready for Hillary" website, the first face you see is DeBlasio's.

I think you're the one with the "dispute" problem, with your Ben Smith sources to back up your sky-is-falling OP.

Time will tell as to what is or is not enough. All I can tell you is I'm not cowed by the rumblings of Albritton-schooled rightwingers expressing "concern" about HRC....and that's Benny boy to a T. And UPI? They're such wingnut scumbags that Helen Thomas quit them in disgust--but you use them as "proof" of a vague "Hillary Baaaaaaad" thesis.

Sorry, you're not convincing. Do knock yourself out trying, though.

[cali]

274. Most DUers certainly find my argument convincing

Of course, BOG types have their heads firmly planted.

[MADem]

275. Ooooooooh--a gratuitous slam! A personal insult! Didn't take you long, did it? nt

[juajen]

277. I like sand.

The naysaying rarely shows any proof of what is being naysayed.

I hear corporatist a lot, but no examples, unless they bring out that old member of the board thingie at WalMart, which happened years ago. TPP is brought up a lot, and I do not agree with this TPP thing. I don't think any of us really knows what Hillary will do, just as we were in the dark a lot about what Obama would do. Though he has sometimes disappointed me, I generally approve of his direction. We are guilty always of thinking she has to be everything we want her to be. Wrong. She has to bring the country forward, not backward. and lead, lead, lead. This she will do to the best of her ability, which is her habit. We can count on it.

[cali]

280. I've posted numerous links to her enmeshment with corporate interests

do a search.

We can count on hilly fucking us over.

[1StrongBlackMan]

302. I think what BOG types have firmly planted is …

A realization that what you represent is a destructive force in that your advocacy is negative, rather than positive. Your posts do nothing to move the people or the party forward. By that I mean, you seem content to tear down what is, rather than put forth a candidate for whom you {i]CAN/WILL get behind.

There is no one in the BOG that would object to a post, by you or anyone else, that says: “This is who I support and why”, as opposed to your daily, “*I can’t/won’t support {insert person or policy here} because …”, we all get your grievance(s), and largely agree; but absent an alternative, you posts are so much whining.

We get that you feel HRC is too “corporatist” for your taste … fine. But who are they putting forth as an/the alternative. To tear down the presumptive nominee, without putting forth, or even mentioning, an/the alternative, seems to me designed to encourage folks to stay home.

[1StrongBlackMan]

301. How I wish …

Many (Progressives/Liberals) would pause for just a moment to CONSIDER the possibility that they really ARE carrying water for ‘the other.”

Point to ponder: Is my position positive or negative … that is, am I building up something or am I attempting to tear down something.

We get that many feel HRC is too “corporatist” for their taste … fine. But who are they putting forth as an/the alternative. To tear down the presumptive nominee, without putting forth, or even mentioning, an/the alternative, seems to me designed to encourage folks to stay home.

[MADem]

303. +1

Everyone -- except those who get screwed over by the man -- gets a vote. The fact that so many people use it to express a fit of pique, rather than to make the best possible deal they can make and pick the best available candidate, just astounds me.

If everyone dragged two people to the polls, people who don't ordinarily vote, and explained to those reluctant voters what the deal is and how important it is that someone other than a Republican pick the next Supreme Court justices, that would help. As it is, half of us just don't vote.

I don't understand it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

304. I think ...

your accommodating nature prevents you from seeing/acknowledging what is going on with many of these posts.

[MADem]

306. Well, if people have ill will, they'll show it soon enough.

My mama always said "Don't you go stooping to their level," and I thought that was some good advice!

[dotymed]

263. Party before people heh?

You call that "blue to the bone?"
Progressives are "shit stirrers?"

I hope like hell Bernie Sanders runs. This shit stirrer will be supporting him 1000%.

Aren't we supposed to vote for what is best for America?

[BlueToTheBone]

281. I want a candidate who will win.

You can vote whoever in the primary, but in the general, it must be stand together. We cannot allow the republicans to take our country completely down the wrong path. Perhaps I'm still angry about 2000 with the Nadir "lesser of evil" talk. I'll take lesser evil over greater evil any day of the week. And if it's Hillary, I'll stand behind her.

Bernie is a great guy, but could he win in the general? I think not. But Julian Castro is an interesting name. He might have a chance and I would vote another minority over a white man in the primary. Yes, Bernie is a wonderful man, but he isn't even a democrat.

Yes, we are supposed to vote for what is best for America, and if Hillary can mop the field, I'm behind her. What's best for America is that we take back the House and hold the Senate in 2014. In my state we need to fight to get our state house back in the blue column and this talk of 2016 is really a waste of breath and energy.

Be a shit stirrer in your local election! Go Girl Go!

[Oldenuff]

279. Hello.I'm Oldenufff,and I am a shit stirrer...

especially when it comes to voicing my disdain for the "pre selected" candidate...and especially when it appears that the old family political dynasty is in effect.

We all thought that Obama might be a passable prez..but look at what he has been pushing.(TPP)That completely negates anything he has done that was worthwhile in my book.A constitutional lecturer who did absolutely nothing about the Patriot Act or the TSA.And Hillary is just another candidate who will turn on us in favor of the big corporations.

Give me a good old fashioned Bernie over a Hillary anytime.

(I'm not really a sh*t stirrer,but I'm happy to give you my opinion of a shill when I see one being foisted upon us.) So,please stop with the "Hillary is Everything" crap already.(not pointed at anyone in particular,just the Hillary Cheerleaders)

[BlueToTheBone]

285. Hey Oldenuff

I think a shit stirrer is one who pushes a conversation over something that isn't even happening, over and over again without doing anything else constructive.

I don't think I ever said "Hillary is everything", I am not stupid nor blind. We still need to concentrate on 2014 and taking back the House and holding the Senate. Without those 2 things, 2016 won't mean much. There is much to do right now with climate change, social problems with real drugs, immigration reform must pass and we need to stay out of other people's wars and stop starting them ourselves. Those things will never be addressed without a democratic congress and president. So get out and register people to vote and make sure they register properly so their votes will count in 2014. Attach yourself to the most liberal local candidate and work to help them win.

[AAO]

241. If Elizabeth Warren is her VP, that would soften the blow - she'd be next in line

[Divernan]

249. In 2016 Warren will be 67; Hillary C.will be 69; after 2 terms, W=75; HC = 77.

"Next in line" at age 75 in 2024? Not at all likely. Although we can't predict with reliable certainty the age or rate at which any individual's mental & physical capacities significantly diminishes to the point they cannot handle the duties of a particular job, we know they WILL diminish. We also know that the presidency, if not a puppet presidency as we saw with Reagan & W, is the most physically and mentally demanding job imaginable. The campaign alone requires attendance at many hundreds of functions and traveling hundreds of thousands of miles. I believe Reagan was the oldest president ever - age 70 - at the time of his election.
2016 is the last realistic shot either of these women has at running for president. And I'd rather see Elizabeth Warren raising hell in the Senate than serving as VP.

[MADem]

253. I doubt that will happen.

I think she'll take someone from the west, maybe even Texas. Probably a male, maybe someone who is Hispanic.

This election will benefit from ticket balancing.

I'm from MA, and I love MA politicians but MA liberals (Dukakis, Kerry, e.g.) don't do well on the national ticket--we haven't had a winner since JFK, and he ran on the "missile gap" and a strong, anti-Communist, national defense. Nowadays this board would call him a hawk and kick him to the curb.

[woo me with science]

308. No more voting for candidates whose "blows" need to be softened.

Amazing how sick the corporate status quo has made these discussions.

Which corporate-provided candidate will bludgeon us the least?

[AAO]

309. I hope Warren runs against HRC as a Democrat - I'll vote for her.

[q.kobi]

264. dear cali

I think is going to be enough for me and my fans

[cali]

272. dear q.kobi: I have no idea what you are attempting to say.

[gopiscrap]

292. welcome to DU

[tavalon]

161. You seem to forget where you are

Of course we will. We are quite adept at holding our noses. We've been doing it for decades.

[roguevalley]

211. blue to the bone, don't ask that question. you assume that people won't vote for the nom.

I agree. I will have the dry heaves if I have to vote for that corporate shill. Be prepared for war all the time, all the time if she gets in. I will not support her through the primaries. I fear for this country if a monarchy is established by her election. Flame me if you will. I am sick of the names Clinton and Bush. WE ARE 330 MILLION! SURELY THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH! If she beats up everyone else early on, money wins and we lose.

[sabrina 1]

233. From talking to dems I know, they will not vote for her if she receives the nomination. They will

abstain and concentrate all their efforts, starting in 2014 on Congress, not distracted the 'horse race' for the WH. All we need is a real Progressive Congress to begin the work of cleaning some of the mess created by Corporate funded candidates over the past number of years.

I think people are doing that already. Beginning the process of beating both Republicans and Third Way candidates for Congress. Then no matter who wins the WH, they will not be able to get any of their Corporate policies past Congress.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

269. I'm with you. Hillary spells trouble for Hillary. We don't need Rethug lite.

[cui bono]

247. I thikn now is the time for us to say "No we will not support her as the nominee for she is too

corporate and does not represent the people's best interest."

Now is the time to say that so that we do not end up with her as the nominee. We've had enough corporatism from the current president and I honestly do not think the country, or the world, can take another term of that sort.

If we say now that we will support her if she is the nominee then we've already given up and TPTB will know that they can get her into power. Only by saying "no" now will they even possibly stop to consider that maybe they need to slow it down, lessen the greed, and maybe think twice about global corporate domination.

We have to let TPTB know that if we have the choice of two corporate presidents in the main parties we will vote for neither. Otherwise that's exactly what we'll get.

I'm all for supporting the Democratic candidate, but they need to support me by supporting the Democratic Party's principles in return, or rather, first.

[blue14u]

179. I appreciate you posting

this. From what I see and read these are some of the reasons, and then some more,

that should tell us that HRC is not the end all, be all, some would like to say and feel she is.

We do have other options and can win the Presidential election

with a really strong" to the left center candidate". I think the time is now.

We just won in elections all over the US a couple of weeks ago (VA being a major blow to the right should not be ignored).

The voters who got out and voted in those races are going to show up again in 2014 and

2016.

Hopefully the few on DU who think Queen Hillary is our only hope will start to see the writing on the wall as well, and come up with a candidate that will close the divide for us Dem's from having to vote for a "third way centrist" and get back to being Democrats and voting for them....

[mdbl]

260. Is this still up to us?

I really feel that the only reason Barack Obama made it through the primaries before his first term was due to his way of assuaging the corporate owners of our government. Look at his friends and associates before he was elected - all corporate stooges or string pullers. Does anyone here really feel he would have been on the ticket otherwise? If Elizabeth Warren decides to run, she has my vote. Unfortunately, I don't think we really live in a democracy any longer that really determines whether or not she will be able to run a campaign. Some real changes have to happen to our election systems, campaign finance laws, and real action from the 99% before anyone cares what we think. So far, those changes have been going the wrong way and just consolidate the power in the hands of the few. Barack Obama acted like our candidate during the elections, but has been capitulating to the repuglicans ever since. If he were a little more aggressive, would you have those 39 democrats trying to derail his only major legislation? I wish Elizabeth Warren the best of luck and hope to see her name on the ticket. Only thing is, it will probably require her to become more Hillary-like. So what has been accomplished?

[blue14u]

293. mdbl, I understand what

Your saying. EW may need to compromise some, but she would not do as
Obama has, or Hillary will, and appears to be doing.

We need to try. We need to try hard and stop making excuses and finding reasons not to try and change the status quo.

I am starting not to recognize our Democrats anymore. EW is one of two or three that I identify with. I left the republican party for the same reason many many years ago.

At least if we try, we can have a voice being heard from those of us who are so against Hillary and her kind of politics.
Yes we need to get the money out, but we cannot do it by continuing to vote for the corporate 1% ers who have taken over already. .

I too am very angry about the 39 who have turned their backs on us.

This has got to end and we as voters and Democrats MUST try and DO the things necessary to make change. EW won't sell us out like the others. She will do what is necessary to win and then she to can spin on the same dime Obama and Hillary use, just go the other way.
I hope its not just a dream. If not EW, then we must find someone to represent us again as Democrats, not some version of rw Dem

[mdbl]

307. Ok, I'll try harder...

and I hope I can eat my words in 2016

[blue14u]

310. I too hope that is the case.. We vote, we try, to bring change and

do just that!!! Please promise you will go vote and vote in a primary

that will bring us a solid Democrat for 2016. I will stay in touch with you

and we can help each other and our fellow DUer to try also..

One more thing... 2016 won't much matter if we don't show up in droves

for 2014.. This is vital to the rest of Obama's term, and for our newly

elected POTUS in 2016... No sitting out, no excuses, we must vote the

repukes out.. and we can if we just go vote. I will be a support person for you

through it all.. Count on it!!! I'm so happy you said you will try. Its all we have

to do... Just try, just vote.. Thank you for your kindness.

[tblue37]

180. When the first Iraq war made Bush I undefeatable, all the

Dem heavy-hitters kept their powder dry for the next presidential election, clearing the way for a young governor from the small, backwater state of Arkansas to win the first of two terms, creating a situation in which the timid potential Dem candidates from the 1992 election season had no chance of being nominated for 2000.

If Hillary's juggernaut scares well-known Dem candidates away, a lesser known one might appear to challenge her.

Bill Clinton delivered the 1988 keynote speech at the DNC. Barack Obama, the 2004 speech. Mark Warner (2008 speech) is too old and too Old Guard.

BUT the 2012 keynote speaker, young, uber-appealing Julian Castro, might be just the candidate to appeal to the fastest-growing voter demographic, especially while the Repubs are being so obtuse on immigration, and when THEIR Great Latino Hope is the guy who scares most Repubs as much as he scares most Dems and Independents!

Not quite a "prediction," but. . . .

[BlueToTheBone]

216. Now, Julian Castro might have a chance

with many minorities behind him. I don't see Elizabeth Warren winning the presidency (I didn't say I didn't want her) and I don't see anyone else in the arena that has a chance. Alan Grayson? Never, Bernie Sanders? Too old; Julian? But does he want it?

Unless we are working in the party and have credentials to the party convention our wants mean nothing. We can push public opinion, maybe; but true power, nope.

[2banon]

194. Did you hear Howard Dean's remarks yesterday?

He specifically stated that he will be supporting H.Clinton's campaign. There seemed to be no question in his mind, no room for doubt. I was a bit stunned by that.

[Auntie Bush]

240. He ought to know...he's a smart man!

[MADem]

254. He, and a million other people who have already donated to

this website: https://www.readyforhillary.com/

There's no question in the minds of all the Democratic women in the Senate who have urged her to run, either.

[2banon]

284. Yeah, that is unfortunate

We're never ever going to see any real changes in our corrupt governance system.

Women like Hillary Clinton backed by the likes of DiFi et al - give real shame and dishonor to what exactly was intended in our efforts to get Women into political office. Speaking not only for myself, but for many many other women in the early days of our movement - war making and war profiteering was never a factor in our struggle for equality.

Just the opposite in fact.

We were so certain that women in office would in fact see war making policies and the industrial complex supporting war making polices would come to an end forever.

Well rest assured, people like DiFi and Clinton have disabused me of such naivete and delusional thinking. Reactions from these Women to events this past decade and a half has lifted the thick, rose colored veil from my eyes forever.

[MADem]

290. I disagree entirely with every single thing you've said.

Democratic women in public office are doing great things, and HRC is going to be a wonderful POTUS.

[2banon]

291. Of course you disagree with me.

For instance your pov is pro-authoritarian, made clear in several of your posts in NSA threads.

And your pov has very important support, such as the Department of War/Washington/Political "Class", along with the Ministry of Propaganda (aka M$M) supporting and amplifying this pov.

You need not fear, as you made clear, majority in the Senate (of course) support Clinton.


So you win, the rest of us lose. Are you happy now?

One question, does it pain you at all that the 2016 potus election is already called? Obama 2nd term just began less than a year ago. Personally it sickens me that the spectacle is already set in place.

[MADem]

305. Listen to you--so very hard at work with your nasty little label maker!

All I am is a pragmatist, but you go on with your bad self. I know you need to fling that personal insult stuff to try to tear me down/build yourself up. It's a poor substitute for discussion of the issues, but that's on YOU.

The election is not "already called." She IS the best prepared candidate, make no mistake. There's nothing cute or charming about a steep learning curve--it fucks the country over. She is the presumptive nominee because Democrats, by and large, recognize that. We're not going to dicker over whether we want to frame that scribble by Pookie the Elephant or those finger paint hand prints by some three year old when we have a Rembrandt waiting to be placed in a frame and displayed to the world.

There will be NO learning curve with HRC, but she will have to get past Christie or some other Pablum Republican, maybe with a crazed VP. They will attack. This has to be planned for, expected, and countered.

She's been training for this gig since she graduated from Wellesley. It's not like she's a vanity candidate--every single thing she has done has been a tutorial for the Presidency. She's the best we've got, and say what you want about that Hard Dog to Keep on the Porch she's married to, he's an ASSET. He can serve as an envoy, he can negotiate deals sotto voce while affecting a social demeanor, and he will extend her range like no other spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt.

But here's what you just don't 'get:' If HRC wins, no one loses. If Christie or some other GOP nut wins, we ALL lose. And we lose the Supreme Court, so there will be no need to create fake "DU-style" oppositional arguments about "safe, legal and rare," because if the GOP gets their way, that theme will be "coat-hanger dangerous, illegal, and commonplace." The wingnuts will find every way they can to enslave women through the punishment of forced pregnancy by cutting off access to birth control, making it next to impossible to get, to keep those uppity women in line and in their place.

Then we'll all really have something to cry about. And good luck turning that around if they get their way on that score. Go directly to reproductive jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, and stay trapped in a life not of your making, ladies, because the Supremes have spoken.

[billhicks76]

248. Good

There is no way I will vote for Clinton. That family is buddies with the Bush family and I expect Republicans to never vote for a Bush again either.

[q.kobi]

265. Dear Noble one

I fet that the Democratic Party will be one of the most ideal angle for issues to be well handled

[Laelth]

267. Welcome to DU.

Indeed, the Democratic Party is the only institution we have that is capable of both winning and advancing liberal causes. The Democratic Party doesn't have trouble winning. It's that "advancing liberal causes" thing that the party has trouble with. That, of course, is why I am pleased to see reports, like this one, suggesting that the party is becoming more liberal.



-Laelth

[In_The_Wind]

273. Dear q.kobi ~ Hello

[img][/img]

Can you explain a little more, please.

[uponit7771]

3. Premise being Hillary can NOT change policies for the best... Hillary isn't Pol Pot

[cali]

4. Premise being that her history is one that reveals her close ties to corporate interests

no one said she's Pol Pot.

that's an absurd non sequitur.

[uponit7771]

7. Keyword: History, I'm going to wait and see what her plans are... I don't hate Hillary, I think she'

... she's learned from the SOS and grown

I also understand some people not trusting her... I don't think she should ask for it... I am looking for her to earn our trust and willing to give her a chance.

regards

[cali]

10. Fair enough. What would she have to do to earn your trust?

[uponit7771]

38. try

[zeemike]

47. Well for some just say the right words.

And we know what that gets us.

[Wilms]

50. No doubt.

Really looking forward to her "feel" my "pain".

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Forensic psychologiy's oldest and firmest rule:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[uponit7771]

41. Again, people can change... after seeing Hillary in SOS role I'm willing to give her a chance

... with the KNOWLEDGE that not ONE of anyone we choose past or future is going to be purist non corporatist.

I'm not expecting that out of her or anyone else including Warren who the purist will jump all over at their first chance of her not putting every CEO in jail save COSCOs

[zeemike]

52. Just curious but

Just what did she do as SOS that was so transformational?...seriously, I don't remember what that was.

[uponit7771]

64. try

[Veilex]

124. "Try", frankly isn't good enough.

Such a one word answer fails to provide details that DU members often demand/require.
I'd like to believe Hillary grew from her experience... I'm more inclined to believe she
used that time to garner a larger network of support for a nomination.

I do worry that she'll embrace TPP, and be in the corporate hip-pocket.

I'd love for her to prove me wrong... but even though people can grow and change,
more often than not, people don't. The crooks in washington are still the crooks in washington.
Doing the "right thing" becomes merely a matter of confirmation bias.

I'd like to believe she wouldn't be to the right of Obama... But deeds done tend to be a road map for the future.

[cali]

132. She was a primary force in crafting and backing the TPP

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Veilex]

139. If true, then I'm seriously concerned about that.

The TPP is bad news for everyone not already a multinational trillionaire...
and frankly, it doesn't receive anywhere near the level of attention and scrutiny
it deserves.

[uponit7771]

148. For who?

[cali]

149. for anyone attempting to understand where you're coming from.

[uponit7771]

151. Good enough for me and explains a lot, all she has to do is try and make every attempt to stay

... away from corporatism at the levels of JFK, FDR, Carter etc.

[Marr]

162. Glib responses are an admission that you don't have an answer. /nt

[uponit7771]

191. Labeling what's good enough for me is an indicative of purism, I'm not a purist. I'm not going

... to let the perfect be the enemy of adequate

[Marr]

229. "Go, adequate!"

I've heard better mottos.

[uponit7771]

238. Yes, I wish life was full of perfect choice, it's not. On top of all this it sounds like the people

... who like Hillary for her corporatist ties don't have a standard of what level of corporatism they'd' put up with.

starting to look like FUDr meme

[awoke_in_2003]

176. What every SOS does...

represent the MIC.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. What changes have you seen in Hillary?

She's pushing TPP & Keystone, for starters.

And no, I don't expect "purism" in any politician. In fact, it scares me to death. There is no real boundary between purism and fanaticism. A purist is someone who adheres to a rigid model of how things are and how things should be. Some models are better than others, but no model ever adequately represents reality. Any scientist knows this.

Far more important to me than the models are the values. What is the person's orientation, tward what sort of goals is she directed?

My goals have something to do with improving the lot of the people at the bottom, with making the world a better place for life in all its many forms.

Hillary has never convinced me that she really shares my goals.

[cali]

57. Her role as SoS was more conservative than liberal

[Jackpine Radical]

63. Yes.

And in that context, it's useful to remember that the First Gulf War never really ended; Bill just continued it by other means, means that didn't involve bots on the ground.

[uponit7771]

65. Not tippers for me, FDR would have been hated if you think TPP is bad. What she did as SOS

...was seemed to give a damn..

Before I thought she could care less, ... she came off as more human than someone who would outsource jobs and make sure to advertise it during an election (rMoney)

[cali]

71. that's just topsy turvy. the exact opposite of the preponderance of the evidence

you're a conservative democrat who isn't concerned about corporate control. I get that. why can't you just be honest about it?

[uponit7771]

150. This is false, FDR had almost 4 terms as president and you think he didn't do ONE THING that

... rose to the level or corporatism during those years?!!?

His first term the purist here would've thrown him out of office onto his tail... Half his cabinent were full of the bankers who caused the depression

[Veilex]

214. Comment about FDR is a strawman...

We're not talking about FDR who was president way back when... we're talking about HRC who may be a modern day nominee, and potentially thereafter, president.

We've had quite a bit of time between now and then to gauge the results of multinational corporate actions... and the general consensus for those who aren't billionaires (or the woefully uninformed) is: we need to reign in corporations.

HRC has a history of being pro corporation and anti consumer/worker.

[treestar]

142. Exactly.

Warren isn't running, and if she were, and if she won, she'd only have the powers of the Presidency, have to consider everything and consider the opposition, etc. She's just the new "hero" who can do no wrong because she can't be tested.

[uponit7771]

152. The purist here would throw her out the second she doesn't send every CEO to gitmo save COSCOs

... and make Snowden the head of the NSA.

I don't think they would tolerate any compromise past some invisible bar of what they call corporatism...

I don't see objectivity there

[treestar]

156. Yes, and the non-worry about the congress of 2017

Like it doesn't matter, because Liz is so "tough." She is "a fighter." So she will punch some sense into the Republicans. That's about it, so it really is just looking to the Presidency for an all powerful hero. She'd be toast by Jan 30 if there's no single payer. A "disappointment."

[cali]

159. Sigh. More codswallop. I'm not even an Elizabeth Warren for President supporter

at this point.

[cali]

158. what codswallop. One only hopes that you don't actually believe such nonsense.

I, for one, expect corporate money in any national election- but not to the extent that Hillary is entangled with it.

there's nothing fantastical about corporatism. Please see the Citizens United decision.

Your denial is positively amazing.

As for objectivity, there is no such thing. You're not objective regarding your politics. You have a point of view- as does every other poster here.

[Marr]

165. My problem with these arguments

is what you alluded to up-thread.

The pro-corporatist side never admits their actual position. They're conservative Democrats who are unconcerned with the intrusion of corporate power into the realms of government. Instead they make ridiculous "arguments" based in nothing but spin and deceit, like 'Hillary is just like FDR'.

Smack one silly lie and they just blurt out another one.

[cali]

168. it is like that game at the fair where you hit a gopher and another pops up

ridiculous lies and non-responses to facts.

I'd say it's lame, but I got a post hidden for saying that, so I won't.

[uponit7771]

192. Hillarys "extent" you think goes TOO far & others dont..an authoritarian or purist subjects others

...to their personal standards as if their standards on an issue are reasonable or best... they're most likely not

My standard of corporatism is reasonable to me, I'm not going to be an ideologue about it and I don't think I'm compromising those standards for Hillary.

Like Obama and lobbyist I'd like Hillary to try all 8 years she's president to keep the corporatist mentality of the CEO > the elected official out of the white house

[cali]

193. I'm hardly a purist. I don't expect that any candidate won't have some corporate

ties.

Clinton's are way more than any real dem should accept.

[uponit7771]

236. I'm a real dem and I accept the ties she has. I'm not going to let others define "real dem" for me..

...or the standard or corporate ties that should be tolerable for Hillary.

I think Obama and FDR are pretty good standard where as Clinton might have been too far

[sabrina 1]

174. Supporters of Hillary could help her immensely by not referring to those who do not, as 'purists',

one of those talking point words thought up by some expensive Think Tank for the sole purpose of slamming Progressive Dems.

Hyperbole is not a good tool either in order to gain support for a candidate who is already exptremely unpopular with Progressive Dems.

Such as the following:

the purist will jump all over at their first chance of her not putting every CEO in jail save COSCOs

Unless you can produce some evidence that Progressives have ever demanded the jailing of 'every CEO except COSCOS', that is what is known as hyperbole and is more likely to lose critical support for the candidate than gain any.

These are old tactics, tactics that make you wonder 'what are they trying to achieve'?

They tell us nothing about the candidate other than there is a reluctance to stay focused on him/her for some reason. Maybe because there isn't enough to say that is positive about the candidate's potential appeal to the voters. That is my conclusion whenever I see those now old, familiar talking points generally aimed at Progressive Dems, for whom they were invented. Which begs the question, if the candidates supporters want to win, why are they working to hard to drive the very people she will need, AWAY from her??

I never understood that.

Makes you wonder.

[Cirque du So-What]

42. If she's trying to earn our trust

she's going about it in the wrong way by expressing die-hard allegiance to the TPP. The amount of trust-building she needs to muster is practically insurmountable at this point.

[HooptieWagon]

127. Given her sucking up to corporate $...

...theres going to be a lot of mistrust of any progressive promises she makes. She's going to have a huge credibility gap.

[calimary]

137. I see a woman who is and can be flexible. Who's not stupid. Who may well see the trends that are

shaping up. Maybe part of the reason she is being so coy is - she's studying all this that's evolving: the attitudes and preferences of the Millennials. The rise of the Elizabeth Warren types. And the Wendy Davis types. The public's voices that are raising against corporatism and ideas like the TPP. I think - and I would hope - that she's adaptable. I WANT her brains in the Oval Office. I WANT somebody like that in there. And when there is a First Woman President, I think she's the ideal choice to break through that last glass ceiling. She certainly has the resume, the experience, and the gravitas to do it. And the first things out of anyone's mouth have nothing to do with her looks - as it is in sarah palin's world.

I will NEVER forget the day miss sarah was introduced to the national political scene, when john mccain revealed her as his choice for running mate, the day after the Democratic Convention finished up. He stepped backwards and to the side while she came forward and took the podium. And what he did from there told me EVERYTHING I EVER NEEDED TO KNOW. I watched him stand there, stealing repeated glances over at her ass, while fiddling with his wedding ring. The whole time she spoke. He was busy watching her ass. And I'm certain he figured nobody was paying attention to him because they were all busy watching the birdie. My dad had a wandering eye like that. He'd fixate on ANY pretty blonde bauble that sashayed through his field of vision, whether his wife was nearby or not. I KNEW that's what had sealed the deal for john mccain in picking sarah palin. "Hmmm... all other things being equal, I sure could stand having THAT to look at, every day for the next four to eight years..." If I were Cindy McCain, I wouldn't have gotten a wink of sleep from then on. I'll bet Cindy was secretly glad when they lost - because it meant hubby and that woman WEREN'T going to be spending the next four to eight years joined at the hip! (Especially knowing his track record of discarding older no-longer-attractive wives for the sweet young new thing.)

Women like sarah palin have gotten where they are because of their looks. There's absolutely NOTHING behind those looks. Hillary is in a whole 'nother category than that. Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton didn't get where she is because she's some boom-boom babe. Probably one of the biggest deep-down reasons someone like myself would give her a second, third, fourth, fifth, and 25th look. The sarah palins, christine o'donnells, marsha blackburns, even the nikki haleys - pretty packaging alright. But policy-wise, there's a shit sandwich inside. What I appreciate a LOT, deep down, about Hillary, is that her brains took her this far. She doesn't look like her other perfect career someday would be as a Pox Noise anchorette in case this politics thing didn't work out. And Hillary certainly doesn't need to dress in tight-fitted sleeveless tops or short skirts with the obligatory stilettos to be appealing. I am hopeful that those formidable brains will take her to more places where voters like me are to be found - who are also against ideas like corporatism and the TPP.

[libdem4life]

160. Well stated. Wish it was an OP. That last sentence. Thanks from I'm guessing quite a few of us.

[tblue37]

181. BUT brilliance in the servicee of values and policies I despise is even worse

Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

than stupidity in the service of such things. I don't want hostile parties to be brilliant! I like SOME things about Hillary--and if she's the nominee, I will of course support her.

But I dislike a lot about her, too--and I hope she is not the nominee.

[calimary]

244. Understood. Hey, I'm one of the legions for whom the Iraq War vote was a nonstarter.

All things being equal - for me anyway, back in 2008 - it came down to "she voted for the war (and shoulda known better) and he didn't. So for me, he wins the toss."

I hope she's had enough time to study and learn from that - to gain a very effective takeaway for whatever plans for high office she may have. She very well could have won it in 2008 but for her vote for that damn war. I hope to God she's learned from that. But even if she hasn't, I still highly doubt that if she won in 2016 she'd be bringing in a group of leftover PNACers - the way mccain and romney would have. Dems surround themselves with different people who embrace different ideologies and world views than republi-CONS do. And not only in foreign policy matters. I doubt that a second-term Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale would have brought in some friend-of-strip-miners-and-drill-baby-drillers to run the Interior Department the way Saint ronnie did with that ASSHOLE james watt, for example.

[karynnj]

210. Would you have written this about a male candidate?

It is slightly insulting to women in general - though I seriously doubt that was your intention. I agree that Hillary Clinton is an intelligent person, but the same could be said of any potential Democratic person, who has been a viable candidate for President.

In addition, it ignores that Hillary Clinton was far prettier than the average woman her age - just as most candidates are. (In fact, I would guess that her looks might have been the first thing that attracted young Bill - but her intelligence is why he stayed.

However, you would not say of - say Bill Clinton - that you appreciated that he got where he was in spite of looks that would never have made him a male model. The assumption is that the reason anyone reaches that level is that they have a reasonable combination of articulateness, intelligence, and charisma - even though the media will disparage some they do not like.

[calimary]

243. If it was dan quayle, uh, forgive me but - "you betcha"!

He was a male bimbo if ever there was one.

And I was insulted when I heard that ghwb, in picking quayle as a running mate, thought his looks would be a big asset. As I recall, his words were - "one for the ladies."

Frankly, I find Hillary Clinton to be an extremely attractive older woman (AND she was quite pretty as a younger woman) and I'm a lot more sensitized to that as I myself move into "older woman" age. I'm not that far behind her, actually. And I've posted before about men who are described by some as being attractive (remember how many times we all heard that romney looked most presidential of anybody in the GOP clown car last time?) who I consider rather ugly because of the ideas behind the pleasant face.

And yeah, it's sexist. Maybe I stand up on my high-horse too often on this. Always did have a complex about physical looks - especially since I always found myself to be such an under-achiever in that particular game. When I was working, I watched how many intelligent, informed, charming, capable, and articulate females were passed over for the little cutie-pie who was usually younger, blonder, thinner, and photographed better, even if she was as dumb as a post. Many wound up in on camera jobs while those with the much maligned "face for radio" stayed behind microphones. And I wince when I have to see the parade of bimbos on Pox Noise with their blonde hair and tons of makeup and tight sleeveless dresses with the obligatory bare arms and high hemlines. Look at our dear little lara logan of the botched Benghazi pseudo-scandal coverage on "60 Minutes." She'll get a pass basically because of her looks. The rumpled, elderly Dan Rather and his plain-Jane producer Mary Mapes got the heave-ho for far less than the deliberate agenda-driven hatchet job logan worked so hard to drive onto the air.

And superficial? You're correct AGAIN! Unfortunately that's reduced far too much information brokering to the gutter where the gum is that you step in by accident and get on your shoes. And unfortunately, most of America processes information visually. Looks, makeup, wardrobe, hair, sets, stylists, implants, Botox, it's all so damn much about the physicality. And yeah, I fall into it. I just wish so many people weren't able to get ahead - just on that. sarah palin got as far as she has because of her looks. VERY little behind it, and nobody bothered to look that much deeper because the packaging was good enough. I am always rather hyper-aware of the packaging. Perception is EVERYTHING. For good and bad. I don't like it. And I don't like having to play on that playing field. But unfortunately, there it is.

[djean111]

5. I believe the premise is that Hillary wouldn't WANT to change the policies for the best.

It seems to me that her idea of "best" is more the best for corporations and Wall Street, under the false guise of dribble-down.
This time around, maybe some voters will examine deeds and not just be spoon-fed campaign blather.
On both sides.

[uponit7771]

8. We'll see, I don't see tons of corporatism about her now and even Warren couldn't be a purist in ...

...this area and no president has.

I don't think I would want to put that litmus on Hillary just because

[cali]

11. I do

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/hillary-clinton-press-ban_n_4215555.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2482262/Hillary-Clinton-nets-400K-2-speeches-Goldman-Sachs.html

[uponit7771]

44. I have a higher bar for a corporatist than those issue or even a couple. IMHO a person would have to

... have a policy of corporatism \ facism in front of overt acts of trying to turn a good portion of the communion over to private companies... not just a couple of instances where they thought it made sense.

Bush is a pure corporatist where Clinton wasn't .. I don't see the same "fuck government" coming out of Hillary...

[cali]

48. Clinton is every bit as much the corporatist as bush was- maybe more so

those aren't isolated incidents. The Clintons are both totally corporate creatures.

And Hillary's role in crafting and pushing the ugly TPP, prove it.

[uponit7771]

51. Again, out of Clinton I don't see the same "fuck government, it sucks" sentiment word or deed

... there might be SOME "deeds" but Warran will have them also and so will Bernie... NEITHER will be as purist as purist want them neither should it be expected...

Most today who hate Hillary for corporatism would've despised FDR his...

[Proud Public Servant]

84. But that's not corporatism

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:19 PM - Edit history (2)

"Fuck government, it sucks" is libertarianism, anarchism, nihilism, or the heady combo of the three that is teahadism. Not corporatism.

Corporatism is the assumption that government is a good thing, as long as it governs first and foremost in the interests of corporations and the very wealthy.

Nearly everything in Hillary's record points toward her corporatism. Do you want somebody who'll fight for unions, for a new Glass-Steagall, for single-payer health care, for higher taxes on the wealthy, for capital gains taxation at the same rate as income, for closing corporate loopholes in the tax code, for keeping American jobs at home, and for reducing military spending and shifting the savings to social programs? Because there's is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- that indicates that Hillary stands for those things too.

[cali]

101. good post. thank you.

[GoneFishin]

111. +1000. Agreed. n/t

[bvar22]

143. I would like to submit this video as Exhibit 1:

[blue14u]

186. bvar22, thank you again!!

I just mentioned this video in a post on this thread and said you had posted

it a couple of days ago and I wanted to find it to share in this thread for all to see.

I'm going to save it this time..

It's a great example of her true colors then, and most likely now..

TU

[chknltl]

145. +1

I see no evidence that Hillary Clinton fears what President Eisenhower feared when he warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. Actually I fear corporatism takeover of our government more than I fear any other attack on our democracy. The republicans allowed the corporate takeover of their party, we Dems would be well advised to reject this within our party at every opportunity

[DissidentVoice]

220. There's no need to fear such a possibility

Why?

Because it has already HAPPENED.

The United States is now a classic model of corporatist plutocracy.

It began with the Reagan deregulation mania and was sealed by the SCOTUS "Citizens United."

In between there were a lot of other things that happened...some actively aided and abetted by corporatist/DLC/"me-too" Democrats, while others just stood silent and let them happen.

Bill Clinton was an unapologetic cheerleader for NAFTA. In retrospect, I believe Ross Perot was right and had I known then what I know now, I probably would have voted for him. I almost did in 1996 because Clinton rolling over and playing dead on health care and then his leap to the Republican platform soured me so much on him.

I will not support HRC in the primaries. Like others here I am sick of the names "Bush" and "Clinton."

If she gets the nomination...I just don't know.

[uponit7771]

154. FDR has actions that fit in that exact definition, he's a corporatist too? The purist would say yes

[Veilex]

217. Back to the FDR strawman...

We're not talking about FDR... We're talking about HRC.

[uponit7771]

237. False on it's face and a valid comparison seeing FDR would've surpassed Hillary in corporate

... ties.

Hillary meets FDR I'm fine with that

[Veilex]

282. You're the only one making the comparison... the topic has nothing..

to do with FDR... which is exactly why it is a straw man argument.
It is an attempt to steer the conversation in a direction of your choosing...
except this conversation was never about judging FDR's merits during his time,
it is about judging HRC using modern existing scenarios

FDR is simply not part of the equation.

[uponit7771]

283. Irrelevant who is making the comparison, the fact is HRC shouldn't be held to a higher bar than..

...prezes that are hailed as progressives examples by the left.

[Veilex]

286. Thats a bit naive...

Times change, and so do our requirements and desires...
wanting a president to not change and adapt to the people
is basically wanting a president who doesn't represent the
people... the very antithesis of what a president is suppose to do.

As times change, so should our president. We cannot live in the past,
nor should we. Everyone must change and adapt as we
continue on, else we're just stagnating and might as well
cease to be.

A nominee, more than anyone else, cannot
afford your myopic vision of what "bar" they should meet.
Such a nominee will nearly never get voted into office by
the people.

[uponit7771]

287. "Times change" - same can be said about HRC no? tia

[Veilex]

288. Times do change... long practiced habits and behaviors rarely do.

And way to cherry pick a fraction of the comment to try to turn the conversation as you wish.
No, HRC has already proven she cannot meet the desires of the people.
If she wants support, she has to prove the opposite, and based off modern desires and wants,
the bar is set high indeed.

[uponit7771]

289. "rarely do." ... good we agree, RARELY doesn't mean impossible and the reason she deserves

... a chance with the bar being set at the same level as prez's before her that progressives hail as the standard no?

tia

[Veilex]

296. "good we agree" Hardly...

your argument is circular and dogmatic.

FDR may or may not have some aspects of his presidency that were less than desirable and therefore every other president should be permitted those undesirable traits as well? Hell no! That is fallacious thinking at best, and is decidedly propagandistic. If FDR is held up as the pinnacle of progressive values, it is for those accomplishments that were indeed progressive, not the misdeeds that were regressive.

Your argument says we should throw out decades of predictive science on the slim chance that she might be better. Sorry, but I'll take decades of proven science over your dogmatic straw-man argument.

That said, if...and I can't tress this enough IF she has managed to do an about-face and be supportive of consumers and the citizenry over corporations and special interests, then and only then, would consider her.

FDR could qualify as the bar HRC must reach... provided you eliminated any of your claimed supports for corporate empowerment, along with a significant redirection of empowerment back to the American people.

[uponit7771]

297. I think my argument is pretty logical, don't judge Hillary over her tenure by a higher standard than

... people of the past for their day.

That's about it...

I don't see the Hillary detractors doing that, they seem to think FDR wasn't a corporatist by their standards and he no doubt was.

Kind of like RayGun was in no way a fiscal conservative

[Veilex]

298. If that is what your notion of logic is, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have either bought into a narrative or have convinced yourself of your own missundestandings...
One I contend is not pertinent to modern politics or socio economic circumstances.
Either way, at this point, rather than continue to try to explain to you why your notions are misguided,
I'm going to put my time to better use.

Adieu

[uponit7771]

299. Ad homs response are an indicator of a poor position

[Veilex]

300. Your absolutely right...

... and your ad hominem commentary is exactly why I've chosen to stop wasting my time.
Glad to see you understand.

[blue14u]

185. Yep... I don't see

any of that myself.

She is for the top 6% of America.

It was shown by her comment during the Presidential election.

Obama called her out on it, and you could just see it in her face. She

was having a complete meltdown.

bevar posted the video a day or two ago..

I'm going to try and find it and re-post it for everyone to see.

[Veilex]

215. Awesome response! EOM

[djean111]

12. Hillary helped construct the TPP, and there are links elsewhere on DU for information

on that. That's a great many tons of corporatism right there. For me, anyway. Set in stone.
If Obama feels he must make a public case for the TPP, probably Hillary will have to go on record as being for it in a very public way.

[antigop]

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[liberalmike27]

40. Isn't Just Her

It's Bill too--corporations have been filling their coffers for a long, long time.

I'm not sure if she could do enough to gain the populist side, without totally alienating the corporations, which of course as always, includes the media. Need proof? Just see Dean coverage after he declared the media be "broken up into hundreds of pieces." It wasn't the "scream," but coverage that began after he made that statement that killed him.

Navigation is much harder for the Democrat, as he has to avoid many third rails. You can't be anti-free-trade, you can't suggest paring down the war machine, and now you can't bother being anti-surveillance, as that is all just a part of it. You can't do many of the things that thoughtful, actual liberals in the democratic party want.

Best chance? Play the game, get elected, then actually be a decent human being, and appoint radically liberal SC nominees, and hopefully they'll at least strike down Citizen's, and maybe a few other Fascist rulings of late, that Republican legislatures are immediately seizing on, to prove they should not have been taken down (Civil Rights).

[grantcart]

235. The actual premise is that Hillary Clinton is unable to understand polling and

how to articulate issues that will appeal to the majority of voters involved in the primary and then the general election.


It is a unique perspective to have of the Clintons and I don't think there are any other first tier candidates who share that perspective.

[Fumesucker]

6. Think of Hillary's sacrifice, voting for the Iraq war in order to maintain her electability

I'm sure that vote weighs heavily on her conscience today.

[cali]

9. I'd like to see people here who support her address the points in the

op.

The Iraq War will not be much of an issue.

[Whisp]

96. The Iraq war will be an issue if Hillary keeps claiming this

bullshit about her humanitarianism and saving women and children around the globe.

For each time I hear her claim that, or one of her supporters claim it, I will be reminding them of the women and children and men in Iraq during the 8 long suffering years they had in Iraq during Clinton's terms.

The Clinton's are up to their hips in Iraqi blood. I will never forget that and I will keep reminding people of that. That alone should sink her bid for Presidency, it should, but we know how things work.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. Conscience?

[Fumesucker]

46. Imagine the horror of having to vote for war in 2003 in order to be able to save us in 2016?

The Republicans would have destroyed Hillary politically if she hadn't voted for the war, all the Very Serious People knew how vital to the interests of America that conflict would become and make no mistake, Hillary is nothing if not a Very Serious Person.

She knew that a woman who couldn't bring herself to vote for the greatest foreign policy triumph in American history just because it involved kicking a few asses would always and forever be seen as weak and totally unelectable.

Cassandra had nothing on Hillary when it came to prediction about the future.

Her tears, they fell like rain.

[magical thyme]

114. I initially believed her vote for Iraq War was to maintain electability

but as SOS, she sided with the generals for the expansion in Afghanistan and against Biden, who wanted to narrow the focus there to al Qaeda.

Now I think of her as an armchair warhawk.

[Divernan]

250. All that sublimated rage at Bill has to be directed somewhere.

[valerief]

13. We need Clinton like we need Bush. nt

[cali]

14. Hillary and The Carlyle Group. Hillary and Goldman Sachs. Hillary the Corporate Crony

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week

[jsr]

24. +1

Always follow the money.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Hill and MallWart

[cali]

30. yep. really the list of her corporate ties is impressively long

$400,000 for two speeches to Goldman Sachs in October.

I honestly don't get why she'd make such a bad move. It's incredibly arrogant.

[blue14u]

187. Not to mention HRC's

ties to "THE FAMILY"!!

[mattclearing]

15. It's nice to see that the rank and file are coming around.

It used to be that DU was pretty far left of the party, but now it seems like maybe social media has made it so that everyone is getting enough news to realize just how bad it's gotten.

[cali]

27. I tend to agree. DU was to the left of mainstream dems for a long time

I don't think that's true today, whether it's because more people in the dem mainstream have moved left or whether it's because more conservative dems are posting here or a combination of those two.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. I think a lot of conservatism was masked by the fact we had a common enemy in Bush.

Even the DU DINOs hated him, and it sorta looked like we were all on the same page.

Nevertheless, I do detect an influx from the right, now that the Dems have some power.

[cali]

35. That makes sense. Never underestimate the pull of pure partisanshit as well

[zeemike]

70. I am almost sure of it.

I am almost sure I know one of them...who is a far right winger posting as an extreme liberal.
I have known him for decades, and know he is not above doing it...and in fact practically told me who he was, because his ego is so proud of what he can do to deceive people.

[warrant46]

126. Lots of true leftists have moved on from this place

Also quite a number of them have been booted out

[brooklynite]

16. Can I suggest that Bill de Blasio winning in NYC does not scale up to a national election?

[cali]

18. perhaps. perhaps not.

hard to tell what it does mean, but I think Quinn is analogous to Hillary.

What about the other points- specifically that Hillary is closely tied to corporations and the financial industry as well as her involvement in the TPP?

[Jackpine Radical]

36. But new-blood Dems are mounting credible campaigns everywhere.

Wendy Davis, Alison Grimes, etc.

[blue14u]

188. Yes Yes Yes... we are!!!

[CrispyQ]

39. Yesterday I read a socialist won a city council position in some city in Washington, I believe.

I'll see if I can find it.


on edit: Seattle, WA

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Conlin-concedes-Sawant-wins--232133551.html

snip...

Sawant, 41, grew up in Mumbai, India. She says she realized early on she was a socialist who hated the Indian caste system she grew up in.

"I never bought into it. I was completely and I remain completely against the caste system," she said.

Sawant came to America for a graduate degree in economics and moved to Seattle three years ago to become an economics teacher at Seattle Central Community College. She was also part of the Occupy Movement. Just three years ago she became an American citizen.

"And having me on the City Council as an immigrant woman of color with an Indian accent, I think that, I hope, will inspire other people," she said.

She believes that alone she won't change City Council, but she'll be part of a movement to bring change.

"There's a real unrest in the American population for change and things are going to change more rapidly in the coming years," Sawant added.

In the coming months, Sawant will check in as the first socialist council member in recent Seattle history.

I hope she's right about that bolded statement!

[Jackpine Radical]

59. I hate to expose myself to potential ridicule by making a whole OP about it, but

I feel the change coming. The tipping point and the rise of competing forms of populism. We may already be past it with Wisconsin, OWS and North Carolina. If I'm right, things will happen now much faster than we had imagined possible. Unfortunately, it's not possible to predict which kind of populism will arise from the wreckage--the kind that leads to destruction and ruin, or the kind that leads to the transformation and blossoming of humanity.

[cali]

75. I'll rec not ridicule any op you write about this. please do

[BelgianMadCow]

200. I'll be on the lookout for that OP as well

besides, Chris Hedges says "the tinder is there". You're not alone in your thinking. Question is whether we really believe (again) that we have the power, and whether alternatives get articulated. There arme many signs of change, but you have to look rather well, because obviously the MSM isn't pointing them out. There's a "lateral" revolution afoot to counter all the pyramid structures we have, and a revolution that brings back the sense of community which we've lost to individualist consumerism.

A year or more ago I asked my dad whether he thought my idea to start making things here again, paying good wages and sourcing responsibly would bring people to accept the higher prices that go with that. As a business person, he laughed at me. Now, I find that exact same idea on page 5 of the bestselling book on the crisis & economics over here.

[cascadiance]

175. Those in Seattle who want to show they support this change, there's a rally at 2:30 PM today...

http://inagist.com/all/401947984960577537/

Still time for many there to jump in a car to go there to speak up for us all there!

I think this is a great symbolic result that shows that there are many out there that the American public will support to get elected to contradict the constant meme we hear from the corporatist controlling elements of both parties and our corporate controlled media that liberals can't get elected any more!

And here's a longer interview from a couple of months ago in Seattle that went in to more depth about Kshama Sawant and her stances, etc. And this is from a progressive source of FSTV. I also saw again the Chris Hayes interview with her that has been linked to many places here, and it was rather ironic that on one of the Chris Hayes video page links I found, you were forced to sit through a Star Trek GE ad that showed them using GE technology in space before being able to watch this interview about a socialist election win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017158648

The world is changing folks, but it isn't going to change overnight and not without a lot of grass roots work!

[L0oniX]

17. Hillary is not the only one out of step with majority Dem sentiment...

but you wouldn't know it by hanging out here.

[cali]

19. There are a lot of conservadems posting here but hopefully they aren't the majority

[marble falls]

60. Lets face it: consrvative Dems cross party lines easier than do liberal GOP. Nixon and Reagan .....

could never have been elected without Democrats votingfor them in large numbers. A lot of NeoCons, including Reagan began as conservative Dems.

[LuvNewcastle]

21. Hillary is the very face of the corporate Dems.

She didn't help herself any when she accepted all that money recently from Goldman-Sachs for a couple of speeches. Wall St. loves her and will support her, but that's exactly what so many Democrats can't stand about her. If she wants to win the nomination, she's going to have to do a very delicate dance between Wall St. and the populist Dems, and there won't be much room for missteps. She basically won't be able to be herself, so she'll be at a serious disadvantage against a candidate who's genuine. Her chances aren't looking very good right now, but we'll see what happens in the next couple of years.

[YOHABLO]

222. I am afraid a populist candidate might split the ticket ... It's too early to see how things could

play out. I'd rather see a Russ Fingold or even a Howard Dean. Sherrod Brown and also Bernie Sanders (who recently said he might go for it) Bernie would really be a challenge.. But, as much as I like Bernie and would vote for him, he is a declared socialist and Independent .. the right would have a field day with that. We can't sit back and just assume that Hillary will run .. although the campaign has already started for her. Hillary is not the savior .. by any means. Many think it's a "two-fer" with Hillary we get Bill .. again. Well we all know about his legacy. And then there's Joe Biden who has remained in shadows of Hillary about a run for the Presidency. I would love to see a real progressive come into office .. enough of this third-way Clinton / Obama crap. Our country is falling apart as I write. I've never seen such a disengaged dumb downed society. People just barely have a clue what's going on in the world. Sad but true.

[fadedrose]

23. This is the heart of the matter

She is called the "driving force" in the TPP Agreement.

I don't believe the ratings they say she has.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. 2 main factors in the ratings--

Name recognition (but ignorance of her actual stances)
and a longing for a return to the boom days of the 90's, an era of a rising economy that in the short term masked the deleterious effects of Bill's corporatist policies re: deregulation, NAFTA, re-writing SS COLA calculations, and Welfare Deform.

[WCGreen]

26. When you look at it from raw ambition. 2004 would have been the best time for HC to pounce....

[cali]

28. I completely agree. I think Hillary missed her window of opportunity back then.

[PowerToThePeople]

29. I hope so. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

32. from your lips to the goddess's ears (n/t)

[ruffburr]

32. I must say I'm a bit concerned-

I Agree that we need a sea change in our politics and consider myself a Democratic Socialist, I am worried that the repubs would get into power unless we can find a candidate that can appeal across the great divide that is in the country, One thing I am sure of is that this country will not survive the right wingers if they get more power. Also if there is such a candidate they need to get started on the trail Now, And that is not really enough time too establish a majority base,
Scary times.

[WowSeriously]

45. Well, when you operate from a position of fear

You should fear the results that ensue.

[ruffburr]

61. Wow Seriously-

I don't see it as fear, Just common sense, if you think that someone is going to just ride up on their white horse and all will be wonderful la la la , Without working for a plan to reach all people with a message that resounds, Starting Now and should have started last year, Then i would say a reality check is in order

[L0oniX]

69. There are lots of majority attractive messages. US jobs, living wages, affordable housing are a few.

[ruffburr]

73. Absolutely-

Agreed , So it comes down to the messenger

[Oilwellian]

86. Obama did

He wasn't out front and vocal, three years before 2008. Dems have learned from the lies and hopefully will hold candidates up to a great deal more scrutiny this time around.

[WowSeriously]

138. I think it time we stop pre settling for lesser candidates.

But touché on the "wow seriously" response!

[ProSense]

37. Frankly, I think

"even atheists should be praying" that Hillary doesn't run.

[stupidicus]

43. No surprise there

I've been making the case to the "Third Way" supporters here for better than a year now, that they are the minority, not those of us who are beyond sick and Mctired of being taken for granted and abused by the leaders of that movement.

I think the third way masterminds are banking on the enhanced fear of rightwingnuttery ushered in by the creation of the Pee Party to keep us in their voting camp should HC get the nod, and will likely use as never before what has always been determinative for me -- the SCOTUS appointments -- to add to the reasons for swallowing another poisoned pill, and the current SCOTUS has provided plenty to fear (with more on the horizon before then as those who've been paying attention know) should another rightwingnut be planted there.

Maybe her "Family" can say enough prayers for her to smooth out all the wrinkles she's accumulated from doing the tiresome work of being sandwiched between what's left of the left (more than some know it seems sometimes as indicated here) and those who'd rule us in unacceptable ways.

There's never been any doubt in my mind who has more of her ear/attention, as was the case throughout the "Big Dog's" admin.

It would be nice to vote for one pres before I die as an expression of support as opposed to a lesser of two evils choice.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. many Americans don't know that Hillary is not a left-wing populist. Even many Democrats - even those

who are above average in being informed and following issues - incorrectly presume Hillary Clinton like Barack Obama are left-wing, liberal, progressive and populist. That is the impression one would get from following the mainstream media with the likes of Fox News and right-wing media reaching them with the only other counter-narrative. The main reason why I would like to see Sen. Warren or Sen. Sander run is to see a new progressive counter-narrative cross from being a political niche to being an accepted counter narrative to both the right and the so-called "sensible center" where the likes of Hillary, Chris Christi and all the acceptable candidates of the past few decades reside.

[cali]

56. I think the mask is slipping and we can help

she is not inevitable.

[fadedrose]

203. Might be a good idea to send Sanders a few bucks

I know he won't win, but if he gets enough tv time, he might be able to explain the difference between Hillary and Progressives so that the party outside of DC would wake up that they are voting for a republican in Democrat's clothing...

[cali]

54. Let's not forget this nugget from her past: Her connection with The Fellowship

<snip>

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

<snip>

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

[cantbeserious]

55. Hillary No - DLC No - Progressives Yes - Warren 2016

eom

[marble falls]

58. k&r Strong post! I hope you're right and I think you are.

[cali]

76. thank you! and love your slogan.

[hfojvt]

62. I love how it becomes personal

"trouble for Hillary"
"Hillary's nightmare"

It's like it is all a game or something.

Hillary is rich and famous. If she doesn't get to be President, she will still be rich and famous.

That does not seem like a major hardship. That seems about as tough as Bill Gates not winning the powerball.

Except Hillary has already tried very hard to be President.

It seems like an odd obsession to me, and it seems like an awful job to have, and a lot of work to get. Why does she even want to put herself through it?

[cali]

77. how on earth is that "personal" ? I don't even get the point of your post

[hfojvt]

90. How is "trouble for Hillary" NOT personal?

I just think from a working class perspective, "trouble" for a person has more serious consequences than just "I don't get to be President".

If my car breaks down, that is trouble.
If my refrigerator breaks down, that is trouble.
If I lose my job, that is trouble.
If I get hurt bad at work, that is trouble.

But if I train really hard to run in the Boston marathon, and yet for some reason do NOT win it, that isn't really "trouble" no matter how badly I wanted to win.

Now going bankrupt in the attempt - that would be trouble.

Just the wording of these titles and the way they talk about politics seems so "cult of personality".

What about the "trouble" for the Democratic Party and for the United States of America if Hillary WINS? Is that maybe more important than Hillary's personal ambition and personal "trouble"?

[cali]

99. Sorry, I think your post is totally nonsensical

If Hillary runs for president and these things I point to in the op present obstacles to her run; that's trouble.

you're nitpicking over semantics to a laughable extent.

[hfojvt]

134. still personal, eh?

I still think something like "why Hillary might not win the nomination" would make more sense and also be less personal than "trouble for Hillary".

As for her chances in the nomination, I am not nearly as sanguine http://www.gallup.com/poll/162986/hillary-clinton-favorability-slips-slightly.aspx

Hillary's favorability among Democrats - 94%.

Clearly whoever it was that said "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time", was wrong.

[MADem]

255. 94 %?? But that's Gallup, yes?

They always cheat around the margins when it comes to Dems. The real figure is probably two or three points higher! And as for the Republican numbers, you can probably adjust those by a few points, too!

Blast from the past, but instructive of the point(s) I am making:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/gallup-rasmussen-polling-outliers-lean-republican

[gtar100]

66. 2014 will be a strong deciding factor on which brand of Dem the people want.

Let's hope the power of the progressive caucus grows.

[cali]

78. It may well be an indicator of where dems are heading

[hollowdweller]

67. Biggest Trouble For Hillary Is Her Campaign

She was way in front in 08, and her campaign made so many mess ups and were not really able to walk them back.

I think campaigning and the possibility she will mess up there - poses a greater danger to her than the Clintons being the point people for free trade which sent people's jobs overseas, the Clinton admin signing deregulation which played a part in the financial meltdown, and their close association with rich Wall Street types which have caused the inequality that is destroying the middle class. I don't even think her hawkish foreign policy will hurt her as bad as just a really poorly run campaign.

[cali]

79. I think Hillary has a tone deaf quality to her

I agree that her campaign in her last run made some pretty big errors

[Ikonoklast]

184. Both Hillary and her campaign staff believed in her 'inevitability' back then, too.

They were first surprised, then enraged when they realized that the Black Guy was beating them.

Their anger showed through as it became apparent that she was losing the race to be the nominee.

[ZRT2209]

68. In order to defeat Hillary, Dems will vote for Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.

Cruz/Christie means real progressive progress for America.

[cali]

72. riiight. because that's the only alternative. If we don't nominate conservaHillary

we'll get worse.

bull. shit.

[magical thyme]

122. are you assuming Hillary will win the primaries?

Or that if she wins the primaries, Dems will vote for rightwing nutcases?

Hillary already lost one primary that was 'hers to lose.' She could do it again.

[cali]

74. I don't get why conservative dems don't just admit that that's what they are

instead of pretending that Hillary doesn't have deep corporate connections, that her vote for war wasn't really a vote for war, etc, etc.

[ProSense]

80. Can you explain why Howard Dean supports her?

Not saying you can, but don't you think Dean is going to influence some people?

Why isn't he supporting Warren?

[cali]

82. Well, Dean wasn't particularly progressive when he was Governor of Vermont

I don't think he'll be a big influence though he may influence some people.

[MADem]

256. Because Warren isn't running. She has said so over and over.

She repeated it two days ago in Waltham. That's seven times in the last two months she's said "Hell, no."

The right wing is praying she'll run--they saw what a tough slog she had against Scott Brown; anyone who thinks that was an easy cruise for EW wasn't paying attention. She was bruised and battered, and it wasn't a landslide.

She'd be crucified in a Presidential election, and she is smart enough to know that.

[cali]

85. lol. yeah, people to the LEFT of Hillary are "repukes".

So ridiculous.

And I note that you and your ilk who support her can't respond cogently to any of the facts in the op or thread.

But yeah, I'm afraid of more corporate conserva dems like Hillary. Because they are repub light when it comes to economic issues.

My bet is that you support such things as the TPP and chained CPI.

[polichick]

89. Is this a joke?

[silvershadow]

83. I will support the left-most candidate, whomever that ends up being. nt

[adieu]

87. Hillary Clinton would make a great

Secretary of State for the next administration. She's got the gravitas and experience.

[bvar22]

146. She would make an even better former politician.

It is well past time for here and her husband to spend more time with their family.

[sabrina 1]

234. Yes she would. We don't need dynasties for one thing, particularly when they are right leaning and

work for Corporations and when their policies have so harmed the middle class.

They've made lots of money and will not want for anything for the rest of their lives so it's time to bring in some new people, real Progressives, to try to undo the harm that has been while Corporations were running everything here, from the Wars to Health Care to Education and most harmful of all, our elections.

[northoftheborder]

88. Cali: Please post a link proving this sentence from your post:

The TPP: She's been a major force in crafting this piece of shit

[Jackpine Radical]

93. Here is a short excerpt of Hill's remarks in Vietnam from the State Dept website--

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/194766.htm

When I visit with the American Chamber of Commerce and a number of both Vietnamese and American business leaders, we will look for ways to expand trade and investment. As the Minister and I were discussing, it has increased from practically nothing in 1995 to more than $22 billion today. In fact, in just the two years that – between now and 2010, it's grown more than 40 percent.

So we're working on expanding it through a far-reaching, new regional trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lower trade barriers while raising standards on everything from labor conditions to environmental protection to intellectual property. Both of our countries will benefit. And in fact, economists expect that Vietnam would be among the countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership to benefit the most. And we hope to finalize this agreement by the end of the year.

[Jackpine Radical]

100. And this…

In November 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Washington’s official pivot to Asia. Outlining a vision for an Asia-Pacific Century, Secretary Clinton described a desired symbiotic and unfettered relationship between the two regions that will provide “unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology.”[1] Washington hopes this engagement will help in “strengthening bilateral security alliances, deepening working relationships with emerging powers, engaging with relational multilateral institutions, expanding trade and investment, forging a broad-based military presence, and advancing democracy and human rights.” With the TPP as a first step, the ultimate goal is to “build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is durable and consistent with American interests and values.”

http://www.coha.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-at-what-costs/

[cali]

118. people who don't want to believe that Hillary is what she is-

will just ignore or reject the evidence.

Cult of personality and all that.

[LongTomH]

153. She was the Senator from India

Sometime, I've got to look up the link to a Times of India article showing Mrs. Clinton in a sari, during a pilgrimage to India where she promised that 'outsourcing will continue.'

One of the big contributors to her campaign was Rakesh Gangwal. He's the India-born former CEO of Worldspan, Inc. (My former company). He came from US Airways after nearly wrecking the company and walking away with $15 million in his piggy bank.

At Worldspan, his 'accomplishments' were to:

• freeze pension plans for 'grandfathered' employees (we could work another decade without getting another penny when we retired),
  
• replace pensions with 401K plans for younger employees,
  
• make all employees take a 5% paycut (we were told that the cut might be temporary (Yeah, right!),
  
• start downsizing the company in preparation for an IPO stock sale,
  
• when the market didn't meet the prices Rakki wanted, he downsized some more to get the company ready for sale to Microsoft (or whoever!).

About that 5% pay cut, about the time we found out the cut was to be permanent, a friend of mine Googled up an SEC document that listed the outrageous salaries and bonuses the officers of the company were getting. Rakki and his friends were making out like bandits -- which is what they were!

Oh yeah, I got the tap on the shoulder from my manager and the dread words: "Come to my office!" in 2005. I had held on longer than most.

[cali]

95. here:

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

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

[duffyduff]

91. The neoliberals and Wall Street mob are calling the shots in the Democratic Party.

Whoever they pick will be the nominee. They gained total control in 2008.

If it isn't Hillary Clinton, it'll be Cory Booker.

The biggest problem here is the fact most Democrats don't see that the party has already been compromised.

[polichick]

92. Far more than "compromised" I think...

Dem voters will have to fight to take it back, if it's even possible.

[cali]

112. I think that the dem base can wrest that away. I agree with Jackpine

that we're at a pivotal moment.

You may be right, but I don't think it's inevitable.

[rhett o rick]

94. Ironically Ms. Clinton will have the full force of Citizens United behind her.

And The Powers To Be will be counting the votes. So Clinton or Christie it really wont matter. The NSA wont change, the economics wont change, actually the appointees will be the same no matter which is president.

And dont forget, "if you get to vote, you are free." Well, except in countries where there is only one candidate, or countries where both candidates are chosen by TPTB.

I heard there is a new Diebold voting machine. The good news is you get to hand mark your ballot, the bad news is that you put it directly into a shredder. TPTB will tell you the result.

[cali]

97. I don't believe that's inevitable- despite CU

I think she's vulnerable and I think Jackpine makes some excellent points about this being a pivotal moment.

We'll see.

[ancianita]

98. To think she'd be less corporatist after becoming president ... I can't...this map boggles.

http://www.muckety.com/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/603.muckety?big=true


The dotted lines declare "past" relationships, but in the real world there are no past relationships.

[cali]

102. Shocker: Hill is pro-fracking

http://junkscience.com/2013/10/07/surprise-hillary-clinton-tells-ny-audience-fracking-is-good-news/

[SHRED]

105. facepalm

Does she truly believe it is "our" petroleum? As if our national energy is indeed nationalized?

WTF?

[cali]

106. she's the ultimate corporate shill. I'll give her this: She's damn good at it.

[SHRED]

107. not good enough to fool me

[cali]

109. no. thankfully. more and more dems are seeing the corporate influence on the

dem party and specific dems- read Hillary- as a very bad thing.

And that number will do nothing but grow.

[SHRED]

113. Sometimes I wonder if this DU is interested in...

...promoting progressive/left ideals or just any Dem as long as they have a (D) after their name.

[cali]

116. there's an awful lot of mindless partisanship here

and lots of cult of personality types as well.

But there are a lot of us who aren't so easily duped.

[SHRED]

119. true

[Jackpine Radical]

157. People seem to confuse political parties with sports teams.

Yay for our side. We won. Yeah, right.

So we got a health care plan dreamed up at the Heritage Foundation, bailouts for the banksters, a looming chained CPI, Keystone, TPP, already a weakening of Gramm-Rudman (which itself was a poor substitute for Glass-Steagall, which was done in by the last Corpo-Dem regime), a DOJ with more interest in busting medical marijuana operations and persecuting whistleblowers than in doing anything that perceptibly advances the public interest…

Yay Team. Go Hill!!!!

[MisterP]

295. heh, a Milloy endorsement (but I thought gender equality was "woo" to those shills...)

[haydukelives]

103. Hillary lost all ready

to somebody we thought was more progressive.
The last thing we need is to go backwards.
though I like Hillary and President Clinton, its time to move on.

[SHRED]

104. We are sick of the old DLC bullshit

NAFTA (losing our national sovereignty), Telcom Act (consolidation of media ownership), Financial Services Modernization Act (the green light given to Wall St to steal from us), etc...

[MisterP]

294. laws written by the Heritage Foundation and Big Insurance...

[90-percent]

108. I don't want her to be President

I like her and shes capable and she did a great job as SOS, but..................

She voted in favor of the IRW!

I'm just an average internet user and I knew well before the invasion that the basis for the invasion was bogus. Her vote is the ultimate insult to all Americans and contractors that served and made the ultimate sacrifice for a lie.

I know the White House lied them all into it, but I will never forgive her vote on this!

-90% Jimmy

[GP6971]

121. What is her position

on SS?? I don't recall seeing anything from her.

[cali]

125. She's waffled all over the place. you can't pin her down

[GP6971]

128. Well........

that sure made it clear (sarcasm intended). Thanks for posting!!!

[4dsc]

130. Hillary supporter are attacking liberals

I know its quite a long time till the Iowa caucuses begin but I am already witnessing attacks from the Clinton supporters for being a liberal. I fully expect them to keep this up for the next three years instead of creeping away from their centrist views and inklings.

[cali]

133. there will be more and more of them

I think it's fair to say that she's one of those people that will do have a cult of personality.

[newthinking]

199. Yes, it will get extremely snarky

Even though I have a low post count I have been reading this site for 10 years. Closer to the election they will heavily try to label those who disagree in a nasty manner and *they* will be the reason that discourse decends into nastyness, as they will atempt to shut down any argument regardless of how fact based it is.

However, as people "wake up" and are more interested in what their candidates will really stand up for, it is getting more difficult for them.

Maybe it is time for them to take a different tact?

[wreq]

135. Hillary Schmillery

Hillary is a warmongering, corporate loving fascist. I would not waste my vote on her under any circumstances. If Ms. Warren will not run here is a sleeper, Howard Dean. Mr. Dean has not ruled out a 2016 presidential run and would be a formidable candidate.

[uppityperson]

140. Welcome to DU. What if she is the Dem candidate, who would you vote/campaign for?

[cali]

141. lol.

[gopiscrap]

197. welcome to DU

[MADem]

257. Errrrrr....Howard Dean has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

So I'm guessing he has "ruled out a 2016 Presidential run."

http://7d.blogs.com/offmessage/2013/08/morning-read-in-iowa-howard-dean-says-hes-backing-hillary.html

[ChiciB1]

147. I, For One Would LOVE To See This Happen!

I think Hillary was very good as a cabinet member, didn't follow her much as a Senator so can't comment. I never supported her as a candidate for POTUS! I would LOVE to see Elizabeth Warren run, but given the Democratic Party of today, don't seeing that as a possibility. Even the "Big Dog" was DLC and further to the right than I've ever been.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party I joined a long time ago has disappointed me more times than I care to mention! I even considered going Independent, but since I live in Florida I wouldn't be able to vote in primaries. You have to register Democratic or Repuke!

It's too bad that Repukes will vote against their own self interests simply because there's an (R) next to their name! You have to attribute this to the fact that they really stick together no matter what the real facts are! Yes, we're seeing a split happening with them, but I don't see Ted Cruz getting defeated as horrible as he is. Could be wrong, wish I'm wrong... time will tell! But Repukes DO stand their round, stick together AND vote!

Our Democrats have weak spines, with only a few willing to really STAND up for "we the people!"

We Need Real Change! It will be great to see a shift and have Democrats fight back. If under 30 voters are truly trending as the articles state, those in power should start LISTENING! But will they. So far, it's mostly the black caucus Democrats out in front telling it like it is. I think I can count on two hands the white Democrats who are pushing back against the Repukes! And I'm white.

Very sad, and even Obama, who I think is truly a good man personally, is a very moderate right leaning Democrat. But most of us knew that from the get go, but has made even more decisions I don't agree with than I thought he would!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. The rising disgust with Politics-as-usual spells trouble for Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

163. If Dennis Kucinich gives up his FOX gig he can run again/nt

[cali]

164. another silly non-response to the OP. Now tell me why Hillary is a good candidate

for liberals to support when it comes to economic issues?

[sabrina 1]

166. Don't forget her role in the NATO invasion of Libya, a country that is now in a tragic state of

deadly chaos. She spoke about the 'new way' to fight wars in the Neo-Con list of oil producing nations that 'need invading'. It is called 'Proxie Wars'. As she explained, as many of us suspected after watching the Libyan disaster, the US doesn't need to invade with its own 'boots on the ground' anymore, we use Proxie armies, from some of the brutal regimes over there, Bahrain eg and Qatar, since the world won't support or accept any more US invasions after the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters.

Now we need to find candidates, and there are plenty of them, who will begin the work necessary to end these horrific and disastrous Foreign Policies, not anyone who is excited about 'new ways' to interfere in the business of other nations,.

I for one won't be surporting anyone who is a supporter of those policies and I know for a fact I am far from alone.

[cali]

167. You sure aren't alone

and thanks for adding that information

[brooklynite]

204. Right-it was in much better shape under Gadaffi's leadership

[cali]

219. that it was in bad shape under Gadaffi is NOT a logical argument

evidencing that it is in anything but HORRIFIC shape now.

truly abysmal fail.

yikes.

[sabrina 1]

232. Yes, it was. In fact most Libyans had free access to HC, so they were way ahead of us in that dept.

There was a law that every citizen had a right to their own home and when a couple was getting married they were given the money to buy a home. Homelessness was not much of an issue there. My cousin used to visit Libya, he lives in Europe, and loved it and the people there. Many Europeans visited Libya, to shop and explore the country. Now he is afraid to go there.

Education was free and if someone wanted to go abroad for an education, the government paid for that too.

Mentally ill people were entitled to their own homes also, with care and whatever medical treatment they needed.

That is the way it should be of course since it was all paid for by the oil the Libyan people owned, well that was then.

Of course there many issues to work on, and their culture is different than ours, and their history, which has just been repeated, tragically.

Now all those programs are gone, the country is being run by a bunch of terrorists, bigots, murderers and like Iraq, that other 'democracy' we created, people are fleeing their country and seeking refuge elsewhere. Especially Sub Saharan Africans, protected by Gadaffi, are now being murdered and tortured.

We need to mind our own business. We are not in the best of shape here and everywhere we go with our WMDs we make things worse for the people.

Of course we did get control of the oil business, in Libya and Iraq so I doubt the profits will go for the services for the Libyan people they had become accustomed to anymore.

[TRoN33]

170. Been wondering...

What would happens if Democrat party won't listen to us and rather to go with Hillary Clinton instead of Elizabeth Warren?

[cali]

171. I doubt Warren will run. She really doesn't have much to do with my

opposition to Hillary.

[hughee99]

172. Clearly someone didn't get the memo about how Hillary is the inevitable nominee and

that both the moderates and progressives love her.

[cali]

173. I think more and more people will be getting that memo.

[newthinking]

202. Yes, they will try to hammer the boot down

as we get closer to the primaries.

What they don't realize is how undemocratic their methods are. This is a discussion board, it is for *discussion*. But for some it is simply another avenue for marketing and spinning.

Trouble is, the tide on this board has changed significantly. Having been reading the board much longer than my post count shows, I have seen even stalwart defenders of the "status quo" turning away from that. It is going to be a very uphill battle if they keep trying to impliment the same methods on this board.

[cali]

205. yes, it has changed. And not for the better.

[totodeinhere]

177. Clinton is not my first choice for the nomination but by any objective standard she must be

considered the overwhelming favorite.

(The most recent CNN poll) showed 65% of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party say they would likely back Clinton as their presidential nominee. Vice President Joe Biden comes in a distant second, at 10%, with freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 7%, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley at 2%.

Of course that's just one poll and it's very early, but if that poll is anywhere close to being accurate then any challenger to Clinton will have a steep hill to climb. But having said that I do hope that we can ahve a bona fide choice in the primaries and caucuses rather than a Clinton coronation. And of course at this point leading up to the 2008 election Clinton was also considered the heavy favorite. And then a guy named Barack Obama came along. Is there another Obama waiting in the wings to take down Clinton again? We shall see.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/2016-poll-deep-dive/

[cali]

178. That's undoubtedly true.

But as you point out, she was the overwhelming favorite in 2008 as well.

[happyslug]

182. 2016 is looking more and more like 1896

In 1896, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party not only revolted but took over the Democratic Party, pushing aside that part of the Democratic Party most like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) 0f today. That was done with a sitting two term Democratic President (Cleveland, Cleveland had won THREE elections in a row by popular vote, but lost the 1888 election in the electoral collage, then won re election in 1892).

Despite that history of victories Cleveland had no say in the Nominee of 1896, in fact opposed that candidate and his demand for inflation (The free silver policy of the late 1800 was to permit minting of silver dollars, the silver in them were worth only 55 Cents, this would reduce the value of the dollar, then set at $20 an ounce of gold). Free Silver would have meant inflation, which wall street opposed, but main street needed and had needed since the 1870s.

Just a comment, 2016 is looking more and more like 1896, except this time the Democrats may win in the Fall (Even people who hated Bryan, made the comment that Bryan won in 1896 EXCEPT for massive cheating by the GOP). Bryan was outspent 10-1 in the 1896 election, and the GOP still had to cheat to beat him. I suspect similar acts in 2016 if a Progressive wins the nomination. It may be the election of the century, like in many ways the election of 1896 set up the elections from then till after WWII.

Side Note: In 1896 the issue for progressive politics was free silver, thus inflation. Thus William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech that won him the nomination. In the period 1896 to 1900, three huge gold fields were put into production, South Africa, Australia and Alaska. This caused the inflation the country needed so the country finally came out of what is now called the Long Depression. Thus by 1900 Free Silver was no longer needed or an issue. Imperialism became the issue. in 1908 it was Anti-Trust. Issues change over time, but once in control of the Democratic Party the Progressives were the dominate force, often switching power with people who we would now call DLC. My favorite quote about Bryan, belongs to Herbert Hoover who observed that the New Deal was Bryanism without Bryan (Bryan had died in 1925). People tend to forget that FDR was of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Membership of the Senate and House were clearly Bryantites. Thus Congress was to the LEFT of FDR during most of his administration. A lot of what we give FDR credit for, actually was what Congress wanted. My favorite is the decision to give the Bonus Army the Bonus it was entitled to get in 1947, in 1935. This is what Hoover had opposed, Hoover did not want to pay the bonus early, FDR did the same, both Hoover and FDR vetoed the legislature to give those bonuses early, the Democratic Congress over ruled FDR's veto. The Bryanites wanted to give the bonus, th DLC did not. The revolution of 1896 within the Democratic Party meant short term defeat for the Democratic Party, but ultimate victory for the Progressive wing in the 1930s.

[polichick]

207. "The revolution of 1896 within the Democratic Party meant short term defeat...

for the Democratic Party, but ultimate victory for the Progressive wing in the 1930s."

It may take a while, but we can't change the party by always voting for the lesser of corporate evils. Time for that internal revolution.

[wyldwolf]

230. Just a historical clarification

'Progressives' had no real national power in the 1930s. They won some state races and made a lot of noise, but that's about it. FDR co-opted some of their messaging but when the Republicans gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships in 1938, most were won at the expense of progressives. FDR famously said that at least the losses eliminated any progressive third party threats.

[happyslug]

231. With the loss of Congress the Democratic party turned to the right

Congress was controlled by progressive Democrats (The Bryan wing of the Democratic party), when the Republicans win in 1938 that came to an end. The Democratic party became dependent on Southern Conservatives to stay in the majority, thus no progressive movement from Congress till the 1960s. It was Congress that pushed reform NOT FDR from 1930 to 1938. Now FDR did oppose the reform but instead of opposing those reforms FDR just tried to contain those reforms. The reason for this was simple, when FDR did oppose reform, Congress over ruled him.

That check on FDR was gone after 1938. Lyndon Johnson was to the left FDR, thus medicare and Civil Rights (at the cost of the space race and Vietnam, Johnson had to deal with a more right wing Congress then FDR had to deal with 1933 to 1938. Some reforms were passed in the 1960s, but marginal compared to the New Deal.

[MADem]

259. Shhhhhhhh....!

You're ruining a meme with those facts!

FDR was a socialist progressive! He was to the left of the left, doncha know....and all that corporate, inherited wealth that gave him his social and educational advantages and life of ease? Why, why...don't confuse people with facts!

[libdem4life]

183. True, and it's largely because of how far to the Right the Tea Party has gone. Frankly, overall,

my opinion is, as a Left Liberal, that we have lost significant ground as to what is now The Right. Some lean to the Left is still Right behind I believe we were 10 years ago. It was just a few weeks ago one of these idiots was allowed to opine and wax idiotic on national television in the highest gathering place of our democracy. Pretty much anything looks left to this bunch and to the country, as well as the awed MSM...at least for a while. They also say that every election...Populism covers a vast territory.

Corporatism is such a "now" subject...but it isn't. It's a 40-year evolution that began in 1971, IMO. Nixon Shock. "The Nixon Shock was a series of economic measures taken by United States President Richard Nixon in 1971 including unilaterally canceling the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. It helped end the existing Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange, ushering in the era of freely floating currencies that remains to the present day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The second event that went hand-in-hand to today's Democrat perjorative called "Corporatism",, was he and Kissinger trying for a big Cold War win with Russia, turned to opening up trade in China. He was heralded as a visionary. And, of course, 40 years later we owe them our financial souls, MOL.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/56g.asp

Like it or not, hyperventilate all day, month and election cycle, while turning into a de facto Republican Cheerleadering Squad, and do the current "in" thing of blaming Her, but it was NIXON who let the genie out of a bottle that no modern politician can put back in. A Republican. So, let's just turn all this ugly Corporatism stuff back over to them, right? The TPP would be just first base for them. No.

I challenge anyone to a further conversation to provide me with a comprehensive list of necessities of life like food and water and electricity and housing, extra goodies we like to buy, or services, or media (our social media and internet), or even public infrastructure like highways and bridges that do not spring forth from a corporate birthing...here or abroad. Not wishing or hoping or if-only...how do you explain to your children that corporations are bad. Start with Twitter, maybe?

(I'd prefer to take on Big Agriculture, for instance. Let's legislate organic food, due to the chemical cocktails in our over processed, nutritionally deficient food and our farms...which I would support. Our daily health, our too-high average weight/diabetis epidemic as well as our bloated health care system would benefit beyond measure.)

Then there is the original seed of Corporatism... the Industrial Revolution...which started it all...and a lot of people really didn't like it. Especially rural folk...because it gobbled up all the newly arrived, unwashed immigrant Europeans, began Liberalism (even starving immigrants got a bit too much) lured the young and healthy and upwardly mobile Americans from the farms. Machines, time saving miracles, canned food...women no longer had to drudge at home all day and all year with their washboards and kitchen gardens....

It was filthy, dirty, dangerous, Mother Jones had to rescue the children, Fat Cats got their name...and those families still exist at the very top of the financial food chain. And the railroad...big, big corporation...see above. Again, relevant, but another post.

Most of these genies left the bottle long ago...before we were born, and surely before we were politically aware. And since it really isn't Saint Hillary, (or Saint Obama), it's ingenuous to expect/berate/ridicule Her to compensate for 40 years of American Policy that gave us The American Empire and hegemony over the rest of the world with The Dollar. This was literally, a New World. Not since the Dutch or maybe the Spaniards??? has one country had so much economic power over trade and currency and size and political influence. (Ditto all of this regarding the pipeline criticism...Henry Ford hardly had the foresight, either, and I'm not keen on $10-15 a gallon for gas and what that would do to the economy, but that's another post, as well.)

And while we're dreaming, I'd like a Third Party. For reasons we all understand and agree upon.

Still...this is quite a burden for the first woman to get anywhere near the White House in our quarter of a century history...as has been the first half-black man to actually get there. They are not Saints. They had to do a lot, a whole lot, of what we love to hate and that is the old "back-room dealing". Party, finances, special interest groups, local interests, volunteers ... and figure out to raise a billion dollars...and please their varied populist groups, to somewhere upwards of 50 million people enough to get them to go vote for them.

Hillary has my vote as of today...warts and all. Anybody who notices what the Left is doing to her, however, would probably not even bother to run...least of all a Progressive. Elizabeth Warren's political arm must be close to broken with all the frenzied arm-twisting around here. She...Hillary... is not a populist. Why not? If one doesn't know, the answer will not make any sense.

Oh and that Citizen's United little phrase...the SCOTUS that Bush Built and Mitt crooned over, the old corporation=person. Yes, let's give them two more appointments, while we're at it. Two of them will not retire until there is a Republican. I forget which two, but we could write them an early retirement package and get a couple in their 50s.

But I'm not willing to bad mouth my party just because it can only produce one person...yea, one rather brave woman who still hasn't declared... who has the balls to put up with all of this shit. Perhaps the question is "What if she decides not to run, and to spend her senior years enjoying her Foundation and potential grandchildren?" Truth is...there is No One in place or in their right mind who expects to do anything but make a national name for themselves...see the paragraph above.

Just don't badmouth and hurt the Party and our chances, if nothing else, to keep another Bush, the third one and not by marriage, out of the White House. Or, come up with a real alternative.

/singed/ The Unapologetic Pragmatist (Willing to change my mind, however, but not going to shirk my hard-fought rights and my democratic duty of voting, either R, D or I, no way no how.)

[Progressive dog]

189. I confidently predict that the Democrats will

have a nominee in 2016 and that he/she will be a mainstream Democrat. Since Hillary is a mainstream Democrat, she could certainly be in the running if she chooses to run.
At this point I would support Elizabeth Warren over Hillary, neither are that far from President Obama on the important issues.

[cali]

190. Elizabeth Warren isn't the issue here. Of course Hillary is in the running

I've pointed out why I think she should be soundly rejected by dems.

And Warren, btw, is to the left of the "mainstream" of democratic elected officials.

[Progressive dog]

196. Did you know that Elizabeth Warren said

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets."
I'm not sure what you mean by "to the left of mainstream". I don't think a former Republican who still supports capitalism would be to the left of mainstream Democrats.

[cali]

198. Yes. I did know that. So?

her positions now are decidedly to the left of most elected dems. they align more closely with Bernie's.

[Progressive dog]

212. I'd put her as mainstream,

she certainly isn't a Bernie type socialist.

[blkmusclmachine]

201. Well, unlike "mystery meat" BHO, HRC is a known entity, a rightie. Send her to the GOP. They need

some "moderation" over there, after all. She'd fit right in, too, I bet. And no, I never particularly trusted the Clintons. All IMHO.

[JI7]

206. de Blasio is a Clinton guy

[cali]

213. de Blasio is allied with the Clintons, no doubt and has a history with them

but that wasn't my point.

[Beacool]

208. Here are some Warren quotes.

On why she was a Republican:

Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

An expanded version of the same quote:

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” Warren says. “I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.”


On Iran:

"Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch."

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2012/04/chance-meeting-with-ma-senate-candidate.html

On single payer:

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2012/07/elizabeth-warren-opposes-single-payer.html

[cali]

218. lol. fail

now why don't you post an op on why you support Hillary? What policies that she puts forth do you support?

Do you support her corporate agenda? Why?

[Beacool]

224. Hey, support anyone you want,

but don't try to glorify Warren as the great savior of the Left.

[cali]

278. I haven't. ever.

sorry, unlike hilly supporters, I don't do the cult of personality thing.

Whether she runs or not is not particularly important to me.

[libdude]

225. Ms. In Between

Very good posts, which after reading the thread and the numerous posts, just confirms my thoughts that voting for Hillary Clinton will do nothing to bring about the progressive changes I believe this country needs. My personal view is she is somewhere between President Obama, a self-described 80's Republican and Gov. Christie. There are a few differences in social areas, but on the general " business party " platform, no difference. I use " business party " as Noam Chomsky assessed the political atmosphere.
If the only reason to vote for Clinton is to keep a Democrat in the Oval Office, that is not a positive reason for me. If the reason to vote for a Democrat is to advance a Progressive agenda for all the people, I can go with that, Sen. Sanders would have my vote, Sen. Warren, possibly, although I would think she can be more effective in her current position.

[rhett o rick]

226. But it's so very important for the populists to have a candidate. nm

[wyldwolf]

228. I'd like to point out that this is asserted every presidential election cycle

... populists/progressives will rise up ... but THIS time it's totally true... right?

[DallasNE]

239. I could Easily Support Hillary Clinton

But would prefer younger blood/new ideas. A couple of name include Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen.Kristen Gillibrand. One notch down would be Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Michael Bennett and Sen. Sherrod Brown. It's still far too early to be focusing on any one candidate.

[Vattel]

261. please not Martin O'Malley!

I want someone who takes civil rights seriously. His weekend police sweeps in Baltimore shamelessly violated the 4th amendment.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

242. The Clinton and the Republicans fighting is soooo "Last Century".

[grahamhgreen]

245. Wooooohoooooo! We can do much better:)

But we still love her.

[DFW]

246. I'm going to wait for her to declare her candidacy

Until that time, I'm not even going to worry about who has what support.

Only declared candidates will be in consideration for the nomination. So far there aren't any (thank goodness--this is NOT a fight we need to be having now).

[MADem]

251. ***Didn't Bill DeBlasio RUN Clinton's NY campaign?***

Ooops...sure looks that way!

When former First Lady Hillary Clinton was looking for a campaign manager for her 2000 Senate race, she turned to longtime confidant Harold Ickes for advice.
He had a name ready: Bill de Blasio, a New York insider he knew since meeting him on the 1989 David Dinkins campaign.
The harder sell for Ickes, however, was getting de Blasio to accept the job. Clinton’s inner circle was a famously tight group, and de Blasio was nervous he would be the outsider.
“Bill de Blasio thought, ‘I’ll never break through that group,’” Ickes, 77, recalled in an interview. “He was awed by being the campaign manager for the First Lady, and talking with President Bill Clinton. He was nervous — and rightfully so — about that. I assured him I’d be with him every step.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/de-blasio-hillary-clinton-owe-mentor-ickes-article-1.1520146#ixzz2kzQSuNJO

Gee, AWED....that doesn't sound like he's an Enemy of Hillary. I'm betting he'll help with her upcoming campaign, too.

But hey, gotta stir that pot, create dissent where there isn't any! And yeah, the day I listen to what Ben Smith has to say (or believe a rightwing push poll from Gallup) is the day that I tolerate more than 12 seconds of Rush without wanting to hurl!

[cali]

266. yes, of course he did. I'm fully familiar with his ties to the Clintons

sorry if you think that's a surprise to me.

That clearly has nothing to do with my point in the OP regarding his beating Quinn- who ran as a legate of Bloomberg while he ran as an unabashed Progressive.

Got it? Good.

[MADem]

270. Well, Bloomberg was a Republican-turned-Independent Mayor.

So why would that be apropos of anything?

And Bloomberg was a one-off, anyway. He was a Democrat before he was a Republican, and NYC voted for him because he was stinking rich and they knew, at least, he wouldn't put his paw in the till. They liked the reduction in crime and the cleaner streets just fine; the Disneyfication and the stop-n-frisk, not so much.

DeBlasio was the right guy at the right time, and how nice that he and Hillary Clinton are such close friends; his endorsement will be meaningful, then --further, he's in a great position to provide all sorts of key leadership to both fundraise and GOTV for her 2016 campaign!

Got it? Good.

[sendero]

258. If we can't do better ..

... than HRC we don't deserve the white house.

[Reformed Bully]

262. 2016 Obama - Biden

Michelle & Jill

[cali]

276. Welcome to DU. The creative speculation forum is that way