How you know America is not a center-right country, far to the left of Hillary:

[grahamhgreen]

Gay marriage and legal cannabis.

She finally came to support gay marriage (I think), and is still foot dragging on cannabis (as far as I know).


We need someone who can lead (not follow) on the following issues (don't ya think):

1) Medicare for All

2) Re-taxing the wealthiest at the Greatest Generation rate of 91%, or 74%.

3) Killing the TPP and withdrawing from our costly trade agreements.

4) Ending the wars and finding non-violent solutions to conflict like other adults.

5) Prosecuting torture and other war crimes committed by prior administrations.

6) Restoring Habeus Corpus and closing Gitmo.

7) Ending the war on drugs and supporting Cannabis legalization.

8) Curbing police brutality and the police state.

9) Protecting privacy, net neutrality and enshrining it into law.

10) Increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr. or more, breaking/unionizing up Walmart and neo-monopolies.

11) Prosecuting corrupt bankers and Wall Street personnel, reforming the Fed.

12) Supporting Move to Amend.

13) Passing card check, supporting unions

14) Supporting our teachers unions and public schools

15) Ending the privatization of schools, jails, and other public institutions.


Etc.

To tell you the truth, I don't know what she stands for, kinda pro war, pro security state, and what else?

Although, I must say, she is quite charming!

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Oh really...Far to the left?

then why do 73% of Democrats support her?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-2016-hillary-clinton-has-commanding-lead-over-democrats-gop-race-wide-open/2014/01/29/188bb3f4-8904-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

with Joe Biden in 3rd with only 12% and Elizabeth Warren with only 8%...


"Her lead is the largest recorded in an early primary matchup in at least 30 years of Post-ABC polling."


Something just doesn't "add up"....

[grahamhgreen]

4. Where does she stand on the above mentioned issues?

[Armstead]

13. Wait for the crickets

Issues dont matter, doncha know

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. crickets? I was asleep...I live on the East Coast...damn!

but here you go....see for yourself..

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

And I am not the myopic type political nerd....I tend to see the Big Picture..

[Armstead]

67. So do I...but sometimes I have insomnia

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. Well I didn't happen to have it last night...

I got a good nights rest.

[grahamhgreen]

127. For or against the above?

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. One issue is myopic....but she is Hardcore Liberal according to "On The Issues"

see here stance on them all:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[grahamhgreen]

131. I just want to know her stance on the above... and I really hate the libertarians little ruse of a

chart! I don't feel it is accurate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. On the issues is Libertarian now?

[grahamhgreen]

136. Is that little graph from 'on the issues'? I believe it was developed by the Libertarians as a

way to eliminate discourse concerning other political parties and philosophies. Note the the only actual political party listed on the chart is Libertarian.

Here's a list from Wiki of the systems that the Nolan chart fails to encompass:

Anarchy
Anarchy is lack of government, as there is no governing authority; in anarchy there is no government and each individual has absolute liberty. It is important to note, however, that the lack of a government to enforce laws does not automatically imply that there are no laws; anarcho-capitalism in particular posits a form of anarchy with a body of explicit laws.
Aristocracy
A form of government in which a select few rule based on inherited hereditary right.
Autocracy
A form of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed ruler.
Communist state
a hypothetical entity to which communists can refer when approached with the inconvenient realities of the socialist "republics" run by communist parties. It is notable however that even under Marxist theory communism is supposed to be stateless.
Corporatocracy
a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country.
Demarchy
a hypothetical political system run by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition. Think selecting a legislature or executive in the same manner that a jury is presently selected.
Democracy
Refers to a broad range of types of government based upon the "consent of the governed." In its purest form it is the same thing as mobocracy, but it is usually practiced in the form of a republic, which provides checks and balances and an establishment that is able to tap an unruly mob on its collective head.
Epistemocracy
a utopian type of society and government in which people of rank, including those holding political office, are those who possess epistemic humility.
Ethnocracy
a form of government where representatives of a particular ethnic group hold a number of government posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population that the particular ethnic group(s) represents and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others. In Nazi Germany ethnic groups Hitler supported held all the power. Neo-Nazis often accuse Jews of possessing an ethnocracy in the person of the U.S. government, which they call the Zionist Occupation Government.
Exilarchy
a form of government, usually theocratic or monarchic, that is established and constituted for rule over an ethnic or religious diaspora rather than over the place of origin whence the diaspora originates.
Fascism
The country is ruled by a totalitarian and corporatist government. It has also gone by the names Nazism, Baathism, Corporatism, and Falangism.
Futarchy
System of government proposed by Economist Robin Hanson based on the idea of voting on a certain outcome and then figuring out how to achieve it.
Geniocracy
a system of government which was first proposed by Rael (leader of the International Raëlian Movement) in 1977 and which advocates problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for regional governance
Gerontocracy
a form of oligarchical rule in which an entity is ruled by leaders who are significantly older than most of the adult population.
Kakistocracy
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens, "Government by the worst."
Kleptocracy
a term applied to a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats) at the expense of the population.
Kratocracy
government by those who are strong enough to seize power through force or cunning.
Kritocracy or Krytocracy
a government ruled by judges.
Kritarchy
a form of order springing from judgments made from principles of natural rights.
Logocracy
government by words.
Meritocracy
a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability.
Minarchy
a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.
Mobocracy or Ochlocracy
government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities.
Monarchy
a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication. A monarchy usually possesses more checks and balances than an autocracy or dictatorship.
Noocracy
a social and political system that is based on the priority of human mind.
Oligarchy
a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military or religious hegemony.
Panarchracy
a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale.
Plutocracy
rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.
Socialist republic or people's republic
a state run by a communist party that pretends to be following the progression from capitalism to socialism to communism hypothesized by Karl Marx. Strangely enough, all of them get stuck in the socialist phase and never actually get on to the communism part.
Sociocracy
a system of governance using consent-based decision making among equivalent individuals and an organizational structure based on cybernetic principles.
Stratocracy
a system of government in which there is no distinction between the military and the civil power.
Technocracy
a form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.
Theocracy
a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler. Since said god or deity is usually absent from decision making, a church sponsored leader or leaders will rule instead.
Theodemocracy
a political system theorized by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormons). As the name implies, theodemocracy was meant to be a fusion of traditional republican democractic rights under the United States Constitution combined with theocratic elements.
Timocracy
either:a state where only property owners may participate in government; or a government where rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honor they hold relative to others in their society, peer group or class.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. that is a really pathetic attempt dude...

Good luck with that....

Leftist Liberal is what he is...

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]

The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]

[grahamhgreen]

141. Not an attempt, a question. Would have liked an answer...

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. What question.....

He is a Leftist Liberal is probably the answer though!

[grahamhgreen]

145. Is that little graph from 'on the issues'? Where did it come from?

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. Yes it is...

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

and I responded that they are not Libertarians....I posted that it is a Non profit and the CEO is a Dr from Cambridge.

[uponit7771]

12. Authoritarian Purist Reply - "...they're not real democrats dammit!!..."

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. I am not a purist of any stripe...nor am I Authoritarian...nor am I deeming others not "Liberal"

as some try to do....calling someone "authoritarian" IS being a purist.

[Scootaloo]

25. The democratic party is not a left party, except in comparison to the republicans

I don't have numbers, but i think a solid number of democratic voters only vote democratic because the way our government is set up guarantees two-party monopoly, and the democrats are the smaller of the two turds in our punch bowl right now.

Clinton was the front-runner for nomination in 2006, too... with John Kerry in second, and Barack Obama getting a response of "who the fuck is Barack Obama?"

The reason she's leading right now - a year before primaries even warm up - is because she's the only democratic politician who has said "yeah, I'll run." Just like in 2006.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. No she hasn't said she would run yet...that is a Damn Lie!

pure unadulterated BUNK!

[Scootaloo]

82. Thought she had. My bad, then!

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. screws your whole premise doesn't it?

[JDPriestly]

36. Why do Democrats support her? Because they don't know what she is about.

They think she is the best they can get, at least better than a Republican.

It's a matter of her stating what she would really do in office. If she is honest, and a more liberal candidate runs, the more liberal candidate will have a good chance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't and they do...

you are in the minority it appears...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Because they're believing the hype that only she can win.

I wasn't polled, by the way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. hype? When she has the STRONGEST lead this far out ever recorded?

Yeah they called the momentum behind Pres. Obama "hype too" Guess who said that?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

87. They all just want Bill back in the White House.

Seriously, in all the history of man-, er, womankind, NEVER has a strong lead been eroded. "They" also said Hillary was a lock back in 2008, but that didn't work out too well for her now, did it? Although, SOS is nothing to sneeze at.

FFS, it's February 2014. Clinton is a known quantity, of course her numbers are high. She hasn't announced, nor has anyone else. We'll see.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Oh yeah...that makes perfect sense...Right...

sure...whatever...reality says otherwise.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Her ONLY support is from the party faithful and the 1%.

So yes, yellow dog Democrats will support her. The problem is, she's managed to alienate EVERYBODY else. She's largely disliked by all but the most devout "Democrats" and if the Republicans run someone sane, she will be easily defeated in the General. Her only hope is that one of the Klown Kar Kandidates wins the nomination. That MIGHT save her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Her "only" support is 73% of the Party ALREADY!!!!!

sour grapes much?

[Le Taz Hot]

128. "of the party."

Isn't that what I just said?

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Hardcore Liberal...how are they "far to the left" of her?

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[tblue37]

51. Name recognition. After being Gore's running mate, Lieberdweeb led the field

in polls taken before the 2004 primary, because other candidates were not as well known yet.

The relentless media hype about Hillary also reinforces the already powerful impact of her fame.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. yeah whatever gets you through the night...

they said the same about Pres. Obama too!

This sounds mighty familiar for some reason....

"Is this a problem with the "LameStream Media" perhaps?

[treestar]

53. Agreed, there is part of the left that simply refuses to recognize

reality as to where the voters are. If they were further left, it would be no problem getting a majority into office.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. And I keep trying to point that out to them...

They are no the majority they think they are.....so out of touch...and it sure seems "familiar" to another group that thought "nobody would vote for "Pres. Obama" either....

American's are not Far Left by any stretch of the imagination...

[tblue37]

99. A lot of people are further left than they realize. Their positions on

many important issues are quite liberal. But so much RW propaganda for so many decades has led most people to believe they are more "conservative" and that liberalism and left-leaning politicians are the "debbil."

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter that people are fundamentally liberal in their beliefs about issues. If they *think* they are conservative and that liberalism isa scary, extreme ideology, then they will reject politicians who openly identify as liberal or who can be successfully labeled as liberals by opponents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. and Hillary is more Left than many give her credit for...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm



Hardcore Liberal is what they called her!

[Steerpike]

143. Deep in the subconscious of America

We want an Iron Lady.

I believe that what she has said and done up to now means absolutely nothing. She will not show her true colors until right after she is elected. I feel in my heart she has the sense to lay low (metaphorically) until she is elected.

She has the potential for greatness and I will vote for her, given the opportunity, just to see her grab America by the ass...and give it a great big shake!

at least I can dream...

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. Actually Hillary is a Hardcore Liberal...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[BlueStreak]

2. Everything you say is true. There is no doubt the country is to the left of Clinton/Obama and 90%

of Congress. Every poll that talks about public policy issues in an unbiased way that is separated from the personalities, shows VERY strong support for the progressive positions. And to the transitional ones about climate, education, health care, gun safety etc etc etc, we can now add minimum wage. There is absolutely no doubt.

So why is it that our media and our "representatives" take such far-right mega-corporation positions?

The question answers itself. And unfortunately there is no way to stop that without stopping the money flowing into the election system.

And there is no way to stop that without replacing at least one of the evil 5 on the SCOTUS.

And to do that, we must elect a President in 2016 that will nominate justices that are nowhere near Scalia, Roberts, Alito, et al.

So we are left with the dilemma that Hillary has a good chance of winning the Presidency. For all the things I distrust or disagree about her, I do believe that her choice in Justices would end the reign of terror the current court has visited on us. And it is very likely that one of those evil 5 will leave the court before the end of Hillary's first term (Scalia and Kennedy would be 84). To me, that really is the very most important thing we have to accomplish. I do not believe we can elect a real progressive in 2016, but if Hillary can flip the court, we can do that in 2020 or 2024 -- and at least limit the damage from 2017 to 2021.

The real campaign is at least 9 months away. If circumstances create a legitimate opening for a viable progressive candidate in that time, I will support that candidate vigorously. But absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor -- I don't believe there will be such an opening.

[dreamnightwind]

9. Let her win a hotly contested primary then

I saw you post this same thing in another thread.

If we can beat her from the left, we absolutely should do so. Enough corporatists masquerading as Democrats. They don't represent us, they represent the multinationals and couldn't care less about us. They don't even care much about Democratic majorities (evidence to this point in the article in my sig line), they are way beyond party and country.

Each of Obama's SCOTUS appointments were more conservative than the justices they replaced, and one of the retiring justices was appointed by a Republican. Hillary probably would appoint people better than someone like Christie or Jeb Bush, but her appointments won't be all that great, and there will be plenty of harm done in other areas, both to our country and to our party when it is forever linked in people's minds to corporate and hawkish policies.

2020? HRC, if elected, will absolutely run again. She's in good shape physically as far as I know. So 2020 is more likely to be 2024, at which point the country will be blaming Democrats for the damage done by corporatist policies, and will try a right-winger for a change (I know, I know, but unfortunately that's how it works).

We can't wait.

[BlueStreak]

19. OK. Then who will it be?

The reality of campaign finance is that if you don't have a lot of the groundwork well underway by now, you aren't going to make a serious run in 2016. Hillary benefits from default status. And if something happens to her, Biden is waiting in the wings.

There simply isn't anybody else putting themselves in a position to make a serious run. It isn't too late as of Feb 5, 2014, but it is getting to that point pretty soon.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Feinstein. Sanders.

[BlueStreak]

24. Diane Feinstein? She makes Hillary look like Noam Chomshy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. +1 (n/t)

[truebluegreen]

37. DINO DiFi? Not to mention, she's 80 years old NOW.

eta: whoops, replied to the wrong person. Sorry!

[grahamhgreen]

56. Oops!!! Feingold, lol!

[BlueStreak]

59. That's better. :)

I wonder if Tom Harkin would get into the race, not with an expectation of winning, but to improve the quality of the debate.

[tblue37]

100. That is what Sanders seems to have in mind. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. okay....bring it!

[grahamhgreen]

93. It's on! Woohoo! If not Russ, Bernie has said he will run just to get our issues out front and

center.... I really hope we can get Hillary on board on some of our core issues - Move to Amend, at least.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. First you have to convince them to oppose her.....

Feingold AND Martin O'Malley will do it because they BOTH want to be her Vice President!

just sayin'!

[grahamhgreen]

149. We have to convince her that her policy positions can easily cost her the election....

Hillary/Russ sounds fine to me

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. No we don't...

On the issues she is Hardcore Liberal



http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[grahamhgreen]

152. OMG. That chart is libertarian BS!

Don't you see that the only political party on there is Libertarian? Why is that? Why not have FDR social democracy as one of the four corners? Because it was developed by the libs to sell their idea that 'selfishness is the solution to all problems'!

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

You're using a tool developed by libertarians to prove that Hillary is a liberal, the chart is nonsense.



Look, war with Syria is about as hard core right wing fascist that you can get. It was opposed by 80% of the American people.

Medicare-for-All is supported by 73% of Americans.

Withdrawing from the costly trade agreements is supported by the majority of all Americans, not just Dems.

She is highly vulnerable on all the above issue.....

Just trying to help out - Good luck!!!

And please, have her throw us a bone, why don't ya

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. Bullshit! Its a Non profit non partisan out of Cambridge...

they have all the information about Hillary's votes right there for you to see for yourself.....go look

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]

The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]

and you have no proof....

Dismiss it at your own peril.

[Le Taz Hot]

148. Oh, good.

I thought for a moment you had lost your mind.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. I am not convinced...

[dreamnightwind]

28. Just two months ago

the centrists were bombing every thread about Warren or Sanders saying it's counter-productive to start talking about alternatives until after the 2014 mid-term! That it's too early. Now it's too late?

I definitely disagreed with the "too early" meme, and I definitely disagree now with the "too late" meme. It probably will come down to Hillary by default, but until that happens, I'm going to keep advocating for a challenger, and I suggest that anyone who isn't aligned with Hillary's policies should do the same.

I saw the Feinstein mention below, too funny, I'd rather vote for Frankenstein's monster than her, and I should know, she's one of my Senators.

Sanders is intriguing. Warren too, I know she said she isn't running, but I've seen plenty of denials before that were not so real later, so I still hope she will run. Perhaps someone else will step up that is not even on our radar, stranger things have happened. I surely hope someone does, I can't imagine having to toe the line for a Hillary campaign in the general election, that would seriously suck.

[BlueStreak]

39. I welcome a progressive challenger. There aren't any.

None that have any better odds than Dennis Kucinich.

I love Bernie Sanders, but he has zero chances of getting elected, even if he were doing the work behind the scenes to organize for a major campaign. We do need some progressives to step up so that Hillary will be forced to weigh in on progressive positions.

[grahamhgreen]

108. OMG, that's what I heard about Obama, lol!!!

[BlueStreak]

118. Obama came out of th epack and shot to the front. There is no pack this time.

That is what is so unusual. By now, there should be some others starting to jockey for position. So far the only one has been Brian Schweitzer, with Bernie Sanders making noise that he'll get in to broaden the debates.

[Maedhros]

137. I was impressed with Bill De Blasio on The Daily Show.

New York Mayors have a decent track record as Democratic Presidents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Warren has only 8% in that poll....

sorry...

And I don't think she would run against Hillary...sorry again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. hahahahahaha...Okay....

yeah....good luck doing better than 73%! You have a tough slog ahead of you...

[DonCoquixote]

92. Sotomayor? Kagan?

How can you can them conservative? As far as the ones they "replaced" as much as we would like to say "let's fire Scalia" we cannot do that short of am impeachment. Granted, i wouldlove someone to try the FDR stunt where they changed the number of justices.

[dreamnightwind]

147. More conservative than the justices they replaced - eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. "Obviously" no they are not...73% belies your position on this...

[BlueStreak]

90. Personalities versus policies

When you poll on policies, the country if far to the left of the positions that any of the DLCers take on average.

The polls you are citing don't talk about any policies. They are just celebrity glamor tests. The problem that Hillary has is that because she has 100% name recognition she has nowhere to go but down as the discussion moves to real issues in another year or so. I think she has strong enough support to overcome that, but it might be another 51/49 race when all is said and done.

I assume there would be high turnout of women, including some women who usually vote Republicans but can't resist the chance to vote for the first female President. That will be a bigger factor than the "first black President" thing for Obama. Blacks strongly supported Democrats all along, but Obama got a higher total turnout of blacks, of course. Considering there are about 30 million Republican women who vote, I can easily imagine 5 million of them going for Hillary just this one historic time, and that could be decisive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. But we don't go to the voting booth to vote on individual issues....

the vote is on "overall". And having an "overall" 73% approval rating this far out...has never been recorded.

[BlueStreak]

116. The point is that says nothing about where the public is vis-a-vis Hillary's opolicy positions.

The public is far to the left of where ANY DNCer comes out on the issues in general. That shows up in poll after poll.

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. Not necessarily true....

I disagree...I think you have fallen for the DU meme that any candidate in the Dem party are automatically Conservative...Not true...that meme is based on one or two issues and is myopic....

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm


that site found her to be Hardcore Liberal...much to the dismay of the myopic around here

[BlueStreak]

139. I don't know about the chart

Go back to the list of questions in the OP. Many of them are shown by multiple polls to be very popular positions among the public when the question is asked without any personality bias.

And then look at Hillary's position on each issue, if that can be determined. The DLCers try to avoid answering any of these questions, but their modus operadi is clear enough. Not talking about Hillary in particular, here is where I see the DLCers in general falling:

1) Medicare for all. They blocked it but give it good lip service.

2) Fair taxation on the top 1%. They are against it, but give it good lip service.

3) The TPP. They are for it, but most of those weasels will not say that out loud.

4) Ending the wars. No consistent positions here. They really waffle and triangulate, trying to have it both ways.

5) Prosecuting torture and other war crimes. Of course not.

and so on. Every issue works out about the same way. To be fair, some of the questions on the OP list imply positions that truly are to the left of the American public in general. But most are actually mainstream positions when you poll the public just on the issue and not the personality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. I DO know about the chart and THAT is the overall score...go read it yourself.

I gave the links for you to do your own research. Like I said...focusing on just one or a few issues is MYOPIC!

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. She stands for winning and power, and whatever means will bring those to her, she unflinchingly

supports until it doesn't and then she was always against it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. She is also a hardcore Liberal according to "On the issues...

Hillary's overall score...



http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[rhett o rick]

5. Both Bill and Hill are charming. Both are getting richer and richer because corps

like Goldman-Sachs love them. They recently gave Hills $400,000 for having tea with them. She pocketed the money and it's all legal although it looks like a bribe. How can we disapprove when the new American Dream is to accumulate as much wealth as possible (I think it's from the Bible).

[Armstead]

15. The inbreeding and corruption among the elites is sickening

[warrant46]

42. Disgusting isn't it

[JaneyVee]

6. I agree, but she's running (?) for Democratic candidate, not Moderate Socialist candidate.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Most of those positions are held by the majority of all Americans.

[Armstead]

16. Whats wrong with moderate socialist?

As Lawrence Odonnell says, we're all socialists. Some of us just don't realize it

[Eleanors38]

44. Hell, I'll take Liberal LBJ Candidate. So what happened to Warren?

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. what happened? She's only polling 8%

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. EXACTLY!

She is hardcore Liberal according to OnTheIssues...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[cascadiance]

7. A few more items to add to this list...

1. Public campaign financing at the national level.

2. get RID of electronic voting machines or use only those with open source and reviewable software...

3. Add getting rid of or at least stop the abuses of H1B and other "guest worker" programs that legalizes foreign "slave labor" and instead streamline the real immigration processes that have intentionally been made inefficient by comparison.

4. Stop subsidizing ag companies with farm subsidies that should only go to family farmers instead of helping these bums put overseas farmers out of work who can't compete with subsidized underpriced imports that creates the situation were they move up here for jobs instead of enjoying a good life as farmers with their own families.

5. Make sure that #9 doesn't get messed up by #12 if companies that have a lot of OUR personal data on their servers claim that they can no longer protect "THEIR" data (that is ours!) from the government without "corporate personhood" rights. Need to write these amendments and laws carefully to avoid this.

6. Pass instant runoff voting to empower worthwhile third party candidates to not be hated like Nader was who was said to be "helping Bush win" in 2000.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Good additions! Can we please hear her positions on these from supporters (chirp, chirp, chirp...)

[cascadiance]

18. Well she definitely is on the wrong side of item three on my list...

l
and while she's complaining about us not having our people well trained enough, we should also add to this list the following item too:

- Work to reduce the costs of higher education now that is way too high to compete with other nations where bachelor's degrees are paid for by countries like India instead of putting kids in to monumental debt. And we wonder why they don't want to go to college, especially if the jobs in their field are being outsourced.

[grahamhgreen]

21. All higher education should be free. Funny how she's asking for more visas while

stating that america has to work for Americans first, when it isn't.

And funny how there is silence from her supporters on issues

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. Why....you can see her positions right here...

All the votes she made are available right here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[RC]

8. I agree with all of those. That is a good list.

I wonder how many on that list that Hillary can be nailed down on? I'm suspecting not many. She is a little to the Right of Obama and he doesn't even support most of that list. Why? Both are beholden to Wall Street and BIG banks and not us little people.
They may be the modern version of what we now call Democrats, but that are too far to the Right for the people working multiple jobs on Main Street. A telling point: Where does Hillary stand on the NSA and its excesses? No one that values liberty would go along with what they, the NSA is doing.

[dreamnightwind]

31. nice logo

I notice it is a little left of center, too, well done.

[RC]

45. Thank you.

I get a little annoyed with people calling themselves "Democrats", but supporting Right of Center causes like Obama's drone war, justifying the NSA overreach, using Republican propaganda for keeping bu$h's tax cuts to be left in place, supporting or justifying the Chained CPI, etc..
It's just something to differentiate what used to be 'real' Democrats from the current crop of DINO's. There are many people here that call themselves Democrats, but never seem to see the different flavors of those on the Left. They hide behind that (D) as if Democrats are somehow monolithic, like the lock-step Republicans are or at least were. In other words they use that (D) as cover to move the Party ever more to the Right.

Anyway, people are free to use that copyrighted Logo, as long as they don't remove the RC Photography^© in the lower right corner.

[warrant46]

43. beholden to Wall Street and BIG banks and not us little people.

Well said by you

And not very excited protecting and expanding Unions either

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. Oh really....a Liberal..

You might want to rethink that about unions...find the information here
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[AgingAmerican]

14. Fail

nt

[grahamhgreen]

23. Can you enlighten us as to her stance on some if these issues?

[AgingAmerican]

26. Fail

nt

[grahamhgreen]

30. True failure is

to never have tried

[AgingAmerican]

33. Read your thread title

...then think about it.

[grahamhgreen]

57. C'mon now, what are her policy positions:)

[AgingAmerican]

58. Why don't you tell us

Einstein.

[grahamhgreen]

60. LOL;) Is she for or against cutting social security? (ie Chained CPI)

[AgingAmerican]

62. Chained CPI is Obama's baby

And your OP title is still FAIL.

[grahamhgreen]

65. Is she for or against it?

[AgingAmerican]

69. She hasn't made any statements on it

It is Obama's baby. Why don't you look these things up yourself?

Your OP title is still FAIL.

[grahamhgreen]

102. Why are you unwilling to defend her?

[AgingAmerican]

160. Why would I defend her?

nt

[bvar22]

110. Well, at least we KNOW she will protect the top 6%.

[dreamnightwind]

32. Considering your sig line

you've got some explainin' to do.

[AgingAmerican]

34. And what

...'splainin' would that be?

[dreamnightwind]

35. What's wrong with the thread title? Looks good to me.

edit to add ok i take it you're harping on syntax? If so why not just say so? Fail? Whatever.

[grahamhgreen]

103. I think "aging" is just trying to divert the argument away from fact based discussion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. How about Jobs...

No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages. (Dec 2006)
Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, “New Jobs for New York”. (Oct 2006)
Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
Recently “we’re in it together” became “you’re on your own”. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination. (Jan 2009))

[Scuba]

17. K&R

[antigop]

20. Kill the TPP??? She played a leading part in drafting it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[Earth_First]

48. This.

...and when a Walton becomes a campaign donor; you absolutely know there is credence to the aforementioned list in the OP.

[fadedrose]

29. Other than a "real" gay,

I think Joe Biden beat everybody to the punch in his support and the President had no choice but to be second...

Go Joe!

[pnwmom]

38. If America is "center-right" and America's far to the LEFT of Hillary, then she's far right.

What do you call the tea baggers? Progressives?

That makes a lot of sense.

[TheKentuckian]

46. I call them over the edge reactionary radical regressives and delusional Birch Society holdovers.

Completely beyond the pale of reasonable discourse hanging out right next to the Taliban on the political continuum.

If the astroturf Teabaggers are the measuring stick for the right then you have place the goalposts on motorized wheels, they will keep pushing and as such mean you are participating in right lining the political spectrum and to that the constant effort to shrink the acceptable left end of the spectrum and you and like minds are helping the opposition to make the debate more and more reactionary.

[grahamhgreen]

107. I would call her advocating for war with Syria a far right position, correct? Can

we agree on that?

Especially when it was at odds with 80% of the American public.

If we look at the fact that the left-wing position was against an attack on Syria; and that 80% of all Americans agreed with that position, how can her position advocating for an attack be viewed as anything but far right?

Hillary Clinton broke her days-long silence and endorsed President Obama's call for a punitive military strike against Syria on Tuesday.

“Secretary Clinton supports the President's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons,” a Clinton aide said in a statement.

The former secretary of State had remained silent since President Obama announced Saturday that he would seek congressional support for limited military action against Bashar Assad's regime for allegedly using chemical weapons.

Clinton's support for the Syria strikes are in keeping with her long-held view that the United States should play a greater role in the two-and-a-half-year conflict. She endorsed efforts to arm vetted rebel groups when she was secretary of State last summer.

Clinton has been burned by bad intelligence in the past, voting when a senator in favor of George W. Bush's use of force resolution on Iraq in 2002. That vote haunted her during the 2008 presidential primary and was a key factor in Obama's victory.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/320103-clinton-throws-weight-behind-syria-strikes#ixzz2sTyo92ek
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I'm actually trying to help her by getting her to adopt some popular positions.

[Cali_Democrat]

47. If this is true...Bernie Sanders should have no problem winning the Presidency. nt

[grahamhgreen]

109. I think he would win. Even folks that voted for Bush voted for Bernie!!!

[mother earth]

49. Go left, yes, but it will never be, not under plutocrat rule, never. K & R for truth, enough of

Bushes & Clintons, enough of the plutocracy.

We'll know who should be president when they speak truth and back it up with action, until then, we are living under the problem, and the solution will always be unobtainable.

There is no true democracy under the current system, nor will there be until we demand it and accept nothing less.

[L0oniX]

50. Tisk tisk. The worshippers are only conserned with voting for who can win, not who is good for us.

[JoePhilly]

64. They aren't good for us if they can't win.

[bvar22]

112. "only conserned with voting for who can win"

...AND that is NOW determined by the People with the Most Money.
.
.
.
.
Funny how that works.

[L0oniX]

113. So uhm ...is that what they call the "money shot"?

Yes indeed ...vote for whoever has enough money to win ...and they call it democracy.

[bvar22]

117. Bob Shrum was on Ed Schultz last week,

...and they were smugly gloating over Hillary's War Chest.
They believe that her MONEY makes her inevitable.

I was amazed that neither one bothered to mention her STAND on ANY issue.
The only thing that mattered to them is MONEY and Name Recognition.

I may have to stop listening to Ed Schultz.
For one who claims to be the voice of Organized LABOR,
I can't reconcile his support for someone with such a virulently Anti-LABOR track record.

[L0oniX]

135. They should have to wear a logo for each of their corporate sponsors just like a race car driver.

[Orsino]

52. Or perhaps we need leaders who can succeed in intermediate steps...

...that actually have a prayer of passing a modern, post-Citizens Congress.

[grahamhgreen]

63. How's that working for Obama? We need a populist that can rally the people, IMHO. The

reason I used those two examples (legal cannabis and gay marriage) is that the media and centrists would have you believe that these two issues were impossible just a few years ago. The people are leading, it is time for our representatives to follow.

[Orsino]

71. It's working very well for the president...

...who did an amazing job bringing moderate reform like ACA in for a landing, just inches over the heads of the most hostile Congress in history.

I would love to see a real progressive populist rally us toward the reforms we really need, but I'm not sure such a person exists (with both the right ideas and incredible charisma) who could possibly gather the necessary funding. While we wait, real reform is still going to be a game of inches.

[Proud Public Servant]

54. We may have to call off the coronation

Schweitzer and O'Malley both look like they're running. Neither, of course, has Hillary's name-recognition or cash -- but neither did Obama. Both have more authentically progressive credentials on a range of issues (though neither is perfect), both have actually accomplished things as the governors of their respective states, and neither can be painted as a creature of DC. Schwietzer in particular would likely give Hillary serious grief in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Regardless of who you support, this is good news; having an heir-apparent is (or should be) anathema in the Democratic Party.

[TBF]

55. Hillary has been tireless on women's rights -

I would agree she is moderate on economic issues. I'm far to the left of her. But then I'm really, really far to the left of most people ...

Why do these OPs keep popping up? We've got 2014 to deal with ... maybe I just see that more clearly because I live in hell (Texas) and we have a very important race for governor going on.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Well, I'd like to see someone to the left of Hillary win in the primaries. If not that, at least get

her to adopt some strong progressive solutions that are the solutions to our countries problems. Not only that, but most of them, like taxing the hoarding class, ending the wars for profit, and pulling out of the costly trade agreements are held by the majority of Americans and would help us to win in the general. I have met her, she is charming, and I believe she can be persuaded, as well as her supporters.

[Whisp]

86. she is not.

what about the rights of women in Iraq?

or the ones in Iran she threatened with her stupid 'obliterate' remark.

or the hardships the coup in Honduras would have made for women and children?

what a load!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

88. She's a hawk.

And that *ain't* good for women.

Agree re: 2014 v. 2016. I live in NC where we might just lose a Democratic Senator this November, even though she's no great prize...

[rhett o rick]

91. What is a moderate on economic issues mean? Do you consider NAFTA and the TPP as moderate? nm

[TBF]

106. "Moderate" may be too kind -

and Elizabeth Warren is someone I would likely find more agreement with. So far she has not indicated interest in running.

I guess a big part of what I see advantageous about Hillary is that she is popular amongst Texas dems ... but then again her health hasn't been stellar either and she'd be the age of Ronald Reagan upon assuming office if she were to win.

I dunno, maybe there will be surprise and we'll end up with O'Malley or someone else as the nominee. 2016 is a world away in political time.

[JoePhilly]

68. You can't just average every American's view (or set of views), and then declare America ...

... center right, center left, or anything else.

You are not working with a normal distribution. What you have is more like a bi-modal distribution.

Two distinct populations that have their own distribution. When you try to average these 2 groups, what you get as an "average" does not effectively describe the total data set.

Finally, if you don't want Hillary to be President ... you'll need an effective primary candidate.

Complaining endlessly about Hillary won't magically cause that better candidate to appear.

[great white snark]

96. Exactly.

Am I the only Democrat who isn't insulted when a purist points out that our party includes moderates? They think it an insult but to me it's a representation reality. I like our big tent dammit and I truly dislike Libertarians/far lefties getting pissy because our party won't bend to meet their expectations.

Don't get mad at us if Hillary is the nominee, like you pointed out there should be less complaining and more finding a suitable alternative.

[grahamhgreen]

101. I'm trying to find out policy positions, not insult you:)

[grahamhgreen]

98. Bernie has said he will run if no effective progressive emerges. Further, they do it all the time,

we've all heard the America is a center-right nation over and over, repeated by the right wing and the media.

It's not, I guess we can agree on that.

Fact is, most American positions are closer to progressive left wing positions than they are to anything else.

[JoePhilly]

105. Again, the average of "most" Americans does not accurately reflect America.

As a simple example, much of America is not pro-Union or pro-Teachers Union.

The fact that Republicans make the claim that America is "center-right" is irrelevant if we are talking about the reality.

They say it as a way to try and convince folks in the middle that they too are probably "center-right". Its a lie intended to get those folks to vote for a Republican when they aren't really sure who to vote for already.

As for Bernie, that's kind of a long shot is it not? Bernie is not a Democrat and is really more of a true Socialist. That won't translate to an Electoral College victory or even a Democratic primary win. And waiting for some "real" progressive to magically emerge isn't much of a political strategy either.

If defeating Hillary is the goal.

Creating a candidate takes work. And at the current pace, there will be Hillary, and then a few very long shots. The complaining about Hillary has been going on for a couple years now ... and its started to get louder, but the effort to actually create an alternative doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

[grahamhgreen]

111. Interestingly, Bernie is also very popular with the republicans of Vermont and NH, because he

stands up for people above the corporations.

If we can't defeat her, we need to nail her down on specific policy positions now, rather than later

[LanternWaste]

85. It's pretty simple to find position policies.

"To tell you the truth, I don't know what she stands for, kinda pro war, pro security state, and what else?"

It's pretty simple for even the most sub-literate individual to find this stuff-- if they're sincere and honest about the question... You might try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton as a portal to more substantial analyses of her positions and platforms.

[grahamhgreen]

97. A simple for or against the above positions is what I'm looking for.

[Phlem]

104. Dems

mostly keep us stuck in a third way rut. With the 3rd one on the way, there really is no other choice and that's an issue.

Full on Republican or a Moderate Republican. Liberal, Ha! What a joke.

-p

[Exciting Trip]

114. Obama didn't support gay marriage when he won

Your argument is weak.

[Auntie Bush]

126. He didn't support gays in the military either.

I believe politicians have a right to let their beliefs evolve...but not the right to out and out flip-flop like Romney for political reasons.

[bvar22]

115. I can understand why fiscal conservatives and Reagan Democrats would support Hillary,

....and be delighted with the current direction of the "New Democrat" Centrist Party,

but these same people seem unable to understand why New Deal/Great Society Democrats (like myself) find her unappealing, and would have great difficulty voting for her.

It IS a tribute to Hillary that President Obama, who campaigned to the Left of Hillary in 2008,
passed HER health insurance Plan (Mandates/No Public Option), and discarded most of the issues that placed him to the Left of Hillary.

[bvar22]

119. How do I know America is NOT a Center-Right Nation?

Because in 2008,
Candidate Obama ran as a Left of Center Populist,
and WON BIG.

*Re-negotiate NAFTA,

*Make EFCA the Law of the Land

*Walk the Line with Organized LABOR

*Raise Taxes on the RICH

*Raise-the-Cap on FICA deductions to protect Social Security

*Absolutely NO CUTS or COLA adjustments to SS to lower benefits

*A Public Option for Health Insurance

*Label our food with GMO warnings and Country of Origin ID

*Hold Bankers accountable

---an indisputably Populist platform, half way back to FDR.
Sadly, that facade was dropped on Day One of his administration.


Candidate Obama distanced himself from Hillary On These Populist Issues,
and [font size=3]WON BIG[/font] on These Populist Issues.

This is HOW I know that the USA is NOT a Center-Right Country.
America IS a Left Leaning Working Class Country that WILL vote for Populist Issues
when given a chance to vote for them.

[grahamhgreen]

125. +1

[Beacool]

120. You must think that the next president is going to get a more receptive Congress

than the current one. Pray tell, how is this paragon of virtues going to accomplish all the items in your wish list? The House will definitely remain in Republican hands and we will be lucky if we keep a slim majority in the Senate. Is this imaginary president going to wave a wand and voila, all these proposals will become bills that he/she can sign into law?

[Auntie Bush]

122. Is that all you want?

[grahamhgreen]

124. Hey, just give me three so I won't feel like a total choade when I have to vote for her, lol!

[bvar22]

134. Agree. It is not a matter of "getting all of these".

It IS a matter of heading in that direction,
or at least some acknowledgement from our Party leadership that these are worthy goals for the future.

As it stands, I feel we are moving AWAY from those policies and issues you listed in the OP.

I joined the New Deal/Great Society Democratic Party in 1967
BECAUSE I believe in these goals:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.

There was a time when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR the above goals.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

I haven't changed.
--bvar22


DURec for the OP .

[Doctor_J]

151. Her term will be a continuation of Obama's

Far right corporatist policies with zero leadership on any of your list items. Better than Fat Bastard or JEB, but that's about it