Did you hear Crystal Ball's rant on the Cycle asking Hillary not to run?

[mfcorey1]

I am speechless and shocked that it came from her. I will post it as soon as MSNBC puts it on the website. It is worth listening to and making up your own mind.


UPDATE

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dont-run-hillary-dont-run

I deeply admire and respect Hillary Clinton. I think she is a great intellect with great fortitude. I think she was a strong secretary of state and a hardworking and effective senator. But I have come to a difficult realization: I don’t want Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016. I hope she does not run, she is not the right person for this moment.

Back in 2008, when all my peers were jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon, I backed Clinton. The country was reeling from a disastrous eight years under President George W. Bush. We were desperate for competence after his incompetence; for respect for government after his disdain. We needed, in my view, a capable hand. She was well positioned to manage the end of two wars and to regain the international respect that had been lost during the Bush presidency. Clinton was a fantastic fit for that moment but that moment has passed.

Now, we are in a moment of existential crisis as a country. As we recover slowly from the Great Recession, we’ve discovered that we don’t much like what we see. Only 28% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction. Some 67% are dissatisfied with the wealth distribution in this country. And as corporate profits soar to new heights, working folks get the shaft sharing in virtually none of the gains of the recovery. In fact, 95% of the income gains over the recovery years have gone to the top 1% of income earners.

It is clear now that we have two economies: one for a thin slice of educated elite and one for everyone else. That is the moment we are in now. So I ask you, does Hillary Clinton sound to you like the right person for this moment?

In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics enabling them to reap all the profit without feeling any compunction to do right by their workers, is someone who sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Walmart for six years the right person to restore worker’s rights?

[wildbilln864]

1. k & fuckin r! n/t

[HERVEPA]

2. Strongly agree!

[roguevalley]

120. times 8 trillion

[fadedrose]

138. At least 20 times 8 trillion

Was never that crazy about Crystal, but I have changed my opinion of her. She is gutsy and smart, and brave to make that statement.

[JDPriestly]

490. As I recall, Obama's campaign made themselves look like they were primarilyl

relying on money from individual donors. A lie, but they tried to give that impression. I remember discussing that with my mother. She was right. Obama was funded by Wall Street to a great extent. I was wrong. I won't make that mistake again. I've seen how hesitant Obama is to step on the toes of his major campaign donors.

[PFunk]

256. Same here.

Never was a Crystal fan but she's dead on on this one. Besides lets concentrate on winning both houses in 2014 first please!!!

[JRLeft]

3. Krystal knows Hillary works for corporate America just like the president.

I would like to see Warren run or someone similar.

[The The]

22. Warren encouraged Hillary to run

There goes your dream.

[JRLeft]

27. Hillary will win and you and I will continue to lose as corporations are given more power.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. Unless of course the truth be told that Hillary Clinton is to the Left of President Obama...

but some refuse to accept the truth...

[JRLeft]

37. Based on what evidence? Both Hillary and Obama are corporatists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. Here you go....

Hillary:



Barack Obama:

[cui bono]

101. I'm not getting that graph. Which does the red dot represent? Social or economic issues? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. Left and right.....Left is Left...Liberal...

The conclusion is...."Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal. "

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

welcome to see how they did it there...

[cui bono]

112. I get the left and right, that's obvious. I asked what the red dot represents. I can't figure out

how they are tracking both social and economic with one dot.

Went to the link and how they figure it and I still don't get it. If you can explain it to me I would be grateful. They used the scores I posted below to come up with that person being a hardcore liberal, right around where Hillary is. So what does that 13% economic score show? I don't get it.

I don't see those individual scores for Hillary to compare to their instructional example.

Unless the method of arriving to a conclusion makes sense (and it may make sense, I personally just don't get it for sure) the result means nothing. And in this case the result is so clearly and so far off it makes me think their method is severely flawed. Obama is not even close to being a hardcore liberal. Not by a long shot. He is center at best.

Candidate's Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

Personal Score 78%
Economic Score 13%


Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate's Personal score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate's political philosophy. Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Liberal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. Its the sum of ALL the issues....

It was pretty spot on for Rand Paul and the like too....

Here you go...Rand Paul:

[cui bono]

117. It may be accurate for Paul, but it most definitely is not for Obama and Clinton.

They are just left-center on social, and right-center/right (I would say just plain old right at this point with TPP, KXL and all the bankster crap going on) on economic issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. Yes it is.....denial is not a river in Egypt and Americans are not as "lefty" as those on DU...

its just a fact. Obama ON The Issues.....has statements and speeches....everything they can get their hands on to prove it.

They judge him to be: "Barack Obama is a Moderate Liberal".

(but on DU....a Moderate Liberal is considered a "Republican"!!!!) I am a realist and I disagree with that.

[cui bono]

121. No it's not. What is so left about TPP, cutting SS, spying on American citizens, drone strikes

killing innocent people, assassinating US citizens, KXL, appointing banksters to the admin, appointing Monsanto execs to the EPA?

Nothing is left about those things. Not one thing.

Statements and speeches don't mean anything if they are not backed with action to match them, and sadly that is the case with Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. Like I say....that is a myopic view....

You cannot base it on ONE issue...or even a couple issues....its an overall score. Overall this graphic is correct.

[Bjorn Against]

129. What makes the graph correct?

Please explain why a graph that puts Rand Paul closer to the center than it does Hillary Clinton should be taken seriously.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. He is NOT....they have him as a Conservative leaning Libertarian....

because YOU don't think that of Hillary doesn't mean it isn't true....Barack Obama is a Moderate Liberal....Rand Paul is a Conservative Libertarian....and Hillary Clinton is a Hardcore Liberal. Sorry...but your view is wrong. That is their overall scores based on what they have said in speeches and votes they have made....

In fact since she left the Senate they have updated her score to...

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.


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

[Bjorn Against]

135. I am not talking about my view, I am talking about the view of the person who made that graph

Look at the red dots on the graph and look where the moderate box is, it shows Rand Paul being significantly closer to being a moderate than Hillary Clinton is. Do you really believe that a graph which places Rand Paul closer to the moderate position than Hillary should be taken seriously?

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. Yes I do.....actually...

He does support marijuana legalization .....and he is not so much a Hawk as the other Republicans....he wants to bring back military from foriegn lands...so he does have a moderate opinion or two...

[Bjorn Against]

143. He has some batshit crazy positions as well

I agree with him on the issues you mentioned, but he is no moderate. He may get a few issues right, but far more often than not he stands with the far right Tea Party extremists. If you look at pretty much any of his economic views he is extremely right-wing Ayn Rand cultist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. Yes he does....but not as batshit as some....sorry...

there are those that are even further to the right of him....

Here is one for you...Ted Cruz:



who they label "Ted Cruz is a Hard-Core Conservative."

[cascadiance]

386. How is the top/bottom range calculated? This isn't the traditional measurement for these graphs

Older graphs of this measurement have liberal and conservative range on left and right, and authoritarian vs. libertarian top to bottom. Then it is a lot more clear where people belong as those that are communists and authoritarian belong in the top left and those who are fascist belong in the top right. Those who are liberal populists (were many of us who are the "forgotten" dems are in the lower left, and those like Rand Paul tend to be just under the center bar on the right. Here is probably a more accurate graph to show were pols like Obama and Clinton belong in this sort of more traditional measurement graph, which gives us a more accurate view of the world in my opinion.

[whopis01]

431. It is the same graph

Take the one you are showing, invert the y axis (put social libertarian at the top and social authoritarian at the bottom) then rotate it counter clockwise 45 degrees, rotate it clockwise 45 degrees and it will match the layout of the other graph.

Basically in the diamond shaped one they aren't plotting it top/bottom and left/right. They are plotting it on the diagonals from bottom left/top right and bottom right/top left.

I think the point is to take someone who is both socially libertarian and economic left and put them to the far left while making someone who is socially authoritarian and economic right move to the far right.

In either graph, the people in the corners are the most extreme in both measures.

Now whether there is anything meaningful in these graphs is a whole other discussion.

[cascadiance]

501. It is NOT the same graph! Where is the point in the repeated graph where one end is AUTHORITARIAN

There is no place here that is authoritarian on this graph. Unless YOU interpret the right conservative as being exclusively authoritarian. I'm sorry but communism IS authoritarian, and democratic socialism is very libertarian and more equivalent to populism and should be on the oppose end of one axis even if both are considered "left". It makes no sense to consider libertarianism "opposite" to populism. I don't like the notion that communism is equivalent to democratic socialism, because someone calls both of them "far let". Anarchy (non-partisan) is at the opposite end of dictatorship (non-partisan authoritarianism). The graph repeated here does not show any extreme authoritarian versus anarchy (labeled libertarian) axis that can either be left or right wing labeled, but in fact is almost equivalent if there are no rules or only a few who rule everyone else with no room for independence in an authoritarian state.

[whopis01]

515. Ah - but they are the same. You just have to recognize

that the labels in the corners are conclusions and not part of the actual data.

I was answering the question about how the top/bottom measure was calculated in the diamond shaped graph. My point was there was no direct measure of the top/bottom axis in that graph.

One graph labels right leaning social and right leaning economics as right conservative. The other labels that same mix as fascism. Likewise one labels right leaning social and left leaning economic as communist where the other labels that mix as populist.

In any case, both graphs are a measure of persons economic position plotted against their social position. They are then labeled and/or turned to attempt to convey a specific message to the viewer.

[JDPriestly]

336. A populist-liberal whose financial support comes from Goldman Sachs and Walmart?

It defies reason.

[VanillaRhapsody]

423. No because we don't have campaign finance reform..

but if you can get elected without taking ANY corporate money yourself then I implore you to RUN!

Watch and see how much money Hillary will collect from ALL sources...

[JDPriestly]

454. Bill Clinton's presidency was a feast for the financial sector.

Wall Street and the dot.coms collected during the Clinton boom. Then, of course, it all went bust. Bush tried to cover it up by promoting a housing boom. But since wages did not rise to cover the increased costs of housing, the whole thing went bust.

I do not want another Clinton boom/bust cycle, and that is what Hillary's banker and investment friends want. That is why they are pushing Hillary.

And we on DU would be fools to fall for that hype again. Too many Americans get hurt in those boom and bust cycles.

Elizabeth Warren has a sense for economics. She is the right candidate for this time whether she has announced or not. I like some other politicians like Bernie Sanders who has his heart in the right place. Biden is a compassionate guy.

But Elizabeth Warren brings a natural understanding of economics plus thorough knowledge of the law of bankruptcy and middle class consumer law. She is our best bet.

Adding on edit: Some years ago I read an article about a study that showed that negative campaigning works. Hillary Clinton is an invitation to negative campaigning. And the independent and potential new Democratic voters were raised on anti-Cllinton propaganda. That negative stuff is deeply seated in the memories of many, many Americans. Hillary should not run. She should strongly support the Democratic candidate that is nominated. She should not subject herself and her family to the kind of negative campaigning that the Republicans so love. And she should not subject Democrats to it either.

If the Republicans could make Benghazi a word nearly every American knows -- Benghazi which is just about almost nothing. Just think what they can do with the mistakes of the Bill Clinton administration. It's best not to invite that kind of campaign. We Democrats have a lot going for us for 2016. The Republicans are in disarray. We shouldn't spoil everything by nominating such a controversial candidate as Hillary Clinton. Besides, her voting record in Congress could bring her a lot of problems, especially her vote and support for the Iraq War. That places her judgment and her willingness to research issues before she makes decisions in question.

Hillary knows D.C. inside and out, but she has a lot of political debts not because she has a particularly bad character but because she has been on the D.C., New York circuit too long. She is out of touch with the problems of the America in which the rest of us live. And no amount of listening tours is going to change that.

The Clintons went to that NY/DC circuit in 1992. They are deeply embedded in that culture. They know everyone there. Everyone there knows them and knows how to crank their engines.

Elizabeth Warren is a far, far better choice.

And the Republicans will not have 20-some years of files on Elizabeth Warren.

If we pick Hillary as our candidate, the entire campaign period will be filled with junk gossip and slander, and voters will be completely turned off by the ugliness long before election day.

Besides which, Hillary does not have the personality that wins hearts during campaigns. If she did, she would have won hands down over Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

456. AND Bill Clinton is...

While Hillary Clinton is...




That you think SHE HAS to be just like her husband is outright misogyny!

[cui bono]

133. No it is not. I did NOT "base it on ONE issue...or even a couple issues.

Read my post again. You can see that with your own eyes.

The graphic is completely and severely wrong.

You didn't answer how my list of things is left. What is your list of all the left things Obama and Clinton have done?

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. there are more than issues than those that makes a person "left" sorry....

that's why its a myopic view...that is just YOUR personal list...

[cui bono]

136. Why can't you just answer the question? Why can't you provide a list of left things he has done?

It's not that hard. I came up with a good list of right wing actions he has done or is currently pursuing and that was just off the top of my head.

Also, that site is not to be taken seriously considering they take quotes into account. They're politicians ffs, you can't take what they say as what their stance is, it's actions that matter.

So again, what actions has Obama taken that make him left?

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. Okay...

Since ALL those positions on HIS page can't convince you...you must need to revisit:

what the fuck has Obama done so far

a refresher course...

[cui bono]

145. Oh lord....

I'm asking you specifically, what has he done that is left? I'm not going to go sift through a list of I don't know what to see if there's anything considered left in there.

If you can't back up claims you make without making me go do your work for you, you should refrain from making them.

Again, that other site is flawed in that it adds quotes into the assessment which we all know for almost every politician bar a few, is nonsense as they say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons then fail to act on their words. Obama said his admin was going to be the most transparent and we know that is far from the truth. He didn't even want us to know about TPP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. and I am answering without anecdotal evidence...

I am using REAL evidence....not what "I" feel....understand?

[cui bono]

161. As was I. So nothing from you then that you know of that is left for Obama?

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. No you are not using FACTS....you are using YOUR opinion...there IS a difference.

Plenty.....I supported Hillary before Obama because SHE supported Single Payer....and she still does. But when the less Liberal (and yes I KNEW that) Barack Obama won the primary...I got behind him.

[cui bono]

167. How is Obama pushing for TPP my opinion? Keep reaching...

heh.

[VanillaRhapsody]

203. TPP is not the ONLY issue is it?

[cui bono]

345. Why don't you ever answer my questions?

[CrispyQ]

376. I love that graphic, but

I would make the background behind "This Space Available" green.

[Bjorn Against]

125. That chart would absurdly suggest Rand Paul is closer to a moderate than Hillary is

Do you believe that Rand Paul is really as close to the center as that chart suggests? I would put Rand Paul much further to the right than that chart shows, he does have Libertarian leanings, but they are right wing libertarian leanings.

I think that looking at where Rand Paul falls on the chart really makes me see the problems with the chart and I am surprised it doesn't make you see the problems with it as well. Do you really think that Rand Paul should be placed closer to the center than Hillary is?

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. No he isn't

Here is what they label him..."Rand Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian. "

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

Notice they didn't say Moderate? Barack Obama is called a "Moderate" Liberal.

[Bjorn Against]

132. Then why does the graph put Rand Paul closer to the center than it does Hillary?

The red dot to represent Rand Paul is just as close to the moderate box as Obama's is, but it is significantly closer to a moderate position than Hillary's is. Do you really believe he should be placed closer to the center than Hillary?

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. because perhaps he DOES have a moderate position or two...

for example marijuana legalization and he does want to bring home our military from foreign lands....

[Bjorn Against]

148. But having a moderate position or two does not make him a moderate

Besides marijuana legalization and ending the wars are not generally considered moderate positions, they are positions that tend to be shared by progressives and libertarians but are often opposed by those that consider themselves centrists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. He is not a moderate....he is a Conservative leaning Libertarian...

almost as far to the right as you can get and still be a Libertarian!

[Bjorn Against]

156. Well the graph does not show him as being very far to the right

You can actually be extremely far to the right and still be a libertarian. Ayn Rand was a libertarian, the Koch brothers are libertarians, there are a number of libertarians who are far to the right of most traditional Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. Yes it does for a Libertarian...which he is...

this graph has a north and south too....

sorry...

Oh yeah...Ted Cruz is to the left of Paul? I don't think so....but yes..Paul IS to the right of some Conservatives...


Hardcore Conservative is his label...

[Bjorn Against]

170. And the north and south positions make the graph even more meaningless

There is such a thing as libertarian populists, but I don't think the person who made this graph could ever figure out where to place them on this graph so wewould just see a meaningless red dot somewhere on this chart that would not come close to representing the person's views.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. Okay....who do you think this Moderate is...?

[Bjorn Against]

159. Why does it matter? I think this chart is totally meaningless no matter who it represents

There is no way to place our political views on a graph, political views are far too complex to be displayed on a simplistic graph.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. NO it isn't....you just don't agree...you use anectdotal evidence...

and they use facts...it is far from Simplistic. YOUR measurements are simplistic....they have a list of 25 comparisons...and EVERYTHING they have said or voted on on those issues. It is even scored on the bottom in a table and you can see the numbers...

International Issues Domestic Issues Economic Issues Social Issues
Foreign Policy Gun Control Budget & Economy Education
Homeland Security Crime Government Reform Civil Rights
War & Peace Drugs Tax Reform Abortion
Free Trade Health Care Social Security Families & Children
Immigration Technology Corporations Welfare & Poverty
Energy & Oil Environment Jobs Principles & Values


Nothing simplistic about it. This created by a Cambridge doctorate....

[cui bono]

174. No. Quotes and speeches are not facts when it comes to representing a politician's stance.

Surely you've heard of politicians saying/promising one thing then doing another.

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. Its not JUST speeches...its VOTES!

surely you have heard of them?

I can tell by this conversation you really haven't spent much time looking at how they are scoring.....

[cui bono]

176. I KNOW! You do understand that when they use speeches in addition to votes it skews things,

right?

That it no longer represents what they've actually done when you factor in promises and nice quotes that never amounted to anything?

[VanillaRhapsody]

181. NO I don't that's politics......

Go see how much the votes are there....

and I am sure they weigh them heavier...

but I am sure you know so much more about it than a Cambridge doctorate that created the site right?

[cui bono]

186. If they think that you should consider a politician's empty promises when determining where they

are on the political spectrum then yes. Yes I do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

189. that is not ALL they are using...they are using actual VOTES....

That is your OPINION that it is empty....evidence is not what you are using...I AM!

[Bjorn Against]

178. What are my measurements?

I could also come up with a list of 25 questions that would place all the people you mentioned on very different spots on the chart. You can't pretend that these specific 25 questions that this person subjectively chose are sufficient for objectively determining a person's position on the political spectrum.

You say my measurements are simplistic, but I don't have measurements I have an opinion. The person who made your chart has an opinion as well, but that person is pretending their opinion is fact that can be objectively graphed out. You can't graph subjective data, and pretending a self chosen sample that includes 25 yes or no questions which do not take nuance into account is in any way objective is dishonest.

I am honest and admit my view is an opinion, if the person who made this graph is trying to claim their graph represents objective scientific data they are being dishonest.

[VanillaRhapsody]

205. I have no idea what yours are....go take the test...its available there...

It IS scientific data...its FACTS

Our mission is to provide non-partisan information for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity.
We get our information daily from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet -- it is a labor-intensive process that requires countless volunteer hours.

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

You can even take the test yourself
http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz/Quiz2012.asp?quiz=Pres2012

[Bjorn Against]

213. Holy crap looking at those questions makes the chart look even more stupid

If you think this is science then you really need to learn about science, because this is not science this is pure crap no matter how many hours they say they spend compiling the data.

Look at the questions they ask if you can even call them that. "Teach family values in public schools"? Seriously? What are these family values they are referring to? It sounds like code for religious indoctrination, but the test that your chart is based on does not explain it they just give it the nice sounding words "family values" and how could anyone be opposed to that right?

Including a loaded question like that just shows how pathetic that graph is, this is not science. I would just love to see them submit this for peer review so real scientists could tear it apart, but I suspect they won't ever submit it for peer review because they know it is not science.

[VanillaRhapsody]

226. Only stupid to someone that denies Political Science is real science....

[Bjorn Against]

229. Where did I deny that political science was a real science?

I never denied that political science was a real science, stop making crap up. Just because political science is a real science that does not make your web site science.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. How else would you describe doing this (if not political "science")?

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet

It's much more of a science than whatever YOU are using!

[Bjorn Against]

238. I have obtained information from all of those things as well

There is not one thing in that paragraph you posted that I have not used when forming my own opinion, yet I don't claim my opinion is science.

[VanillaRhapsody]

239. Please provide a link to that then...

hahahaha yeah right...Theirs is right out in the open...Where is yours?

[Bjorn Against]

241. Are you asking for a link to my opinion?

Just search for my user name, I have posted my opinion many places before and have often provided links to back my opinion up with facts.

I don't know what you want me to link to though, do you want me to link to every opinion I ever had and every source I have ever cited? Because that might take a while.

[VanillaRhapsody]

252. You "opinion" is not what I am interested in...

and you know what they say about them


I am interested in FACTS...

[VanillaRhapsody]

240. My god...look at how much work went into that NON-PROFIT site!

countless hours of research....

[quakerboy]

510. If you actually read through their entire website

it is specifically acknowledged that they are operating on the theory that their answers mean what they have decided that they mean. This is not objective fact, it is an attempt to interpret many data points and come to a generally useful conclusion.

I think that there is a fair argument to be made that their data collection is not accurate (ie, by their descriptions of how they came to determinations, it appears that speeches are weighted equal to legislative votes). And that even if they were fully accurate, they may not always mean what they believe they mean. They are interpreting data to answer questions, not receiving answers directly from the candidates. Which leaves them in much the same position as a christian interpreting the bible. Prone to error, no matter how hard you try.

And then, even if you resolve both of those levels, you are still looking at a scale from within a limited modern us perspective, which results in a skewed judgement. Liberal and conservative are not where they were 20 or 50 years ago. Based on their scale, they call George bush a Moderate Republican, which I would say should make one reconsider where the center of their chart is, vs what an actual moderate or centrist is.

I also found it a bit odd that they link to "advocates for a self government" who also uses a version of their quiz and chart, while advocating for conservative libertarianism. By the pictures there, it appears Ron Paul is a great lover of the little charts they put out. Which in and of itself makes me wary of accepting them quite so quickly as you seem to do.

[cui bono]

523. Well said. A post after my own heart.

And so you shall have one!

[cascadiance]

391. There is NO place for authoritarianism in this graph, that older graphs measured.

This graph looks to equivalence populism with authoritarianism? Or libertarianism with authoritarianism? Or is authoritarianism simply not a measurement, which is my argument that is the case. Just the sort of confusion and misdirection that the corporatists who created this NEW and FALSE methodology that is meaningless in measuring those sorts of characteristics want, since the corporatists want to have authoritarian powers for the 1% and make it appear that those on the left only want that (with "big government&quot ... That's why this crap is UTTER BS!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

399. there are no Anarchists on that graph either....so your

response is Utter Crap BS....it wasn't measuring those....

[cascadiance]

402. And THAT is why your graph is meaningless, especially the top and bottom "measurement"...

The top and bottom only measures "labels" and not something measurable (like how much power the people have versus centralized power, which is NOT a left or right measurement. The measurement of level of authoritarian control makes a two dimensional graph that has left and right on the other axis more meaningful). It doesn't measure this BECAUSE it IS trying to mislead those looking at it whether a candidate has REAL traditional democratic party values, which it has left out! Why change from the older more useful graph methodology unless there isn't an agenda like this?

[cui bono]

522. A post after my own heart.

And so you shall have one!

[cui bono]

173. You just said to me that one or two positions does not make the case.

Now you say it does. Funny how that works.

[VanillaRhapsody]

191. NO they don't but ALL of the evidence wieghed together does....

He has SOME issues that make him to the left of TED CRUZ!

[VanillaRhapsody]

192. It moves the needle the needle a tick or two...doesn't change the fact that he is a

conservative leaning Libertarian.

[whopis01]

365. Turn the graph 45 degrees clockwise

Then economic issues are on the X axis and social issues are on the Y axis. So the dot represents a point in that two dimensional space.

Obama is 30% economic and 70% social while Clinton is 10% economic and 90% social.

That's what the graphs show - now whether or not they are valid and meaningful is another issue. As is whether or not you define left liberal as caring about all social issues and no economic issues....

[VanillaRhapsody]

395. No I won't...THAT graph is Bill Clinton!!!!

Hillary is far to the left of him and ALSO left of Obama!

Sorry I have proof to back me up!

[cui bono]

403. You have proof? Why haven't you shown it then?

[VanillaRhapsody]

404. thats what I HAVE been doing with my graphs...

WTF do you think I have been doing...

schooling YOU!

[cui bono]

410. Graphs that have no validity in what they attempt to show.

Once again... slowly...

They use speeches.....

They use quotes....

You said they even use campaign websites....

as criteria....

that they use to determine....

where a politician stands on their spectrum.


So how are speeches, quotes and campaign websites factual in regards to where someone stands when they govern?

Hint: They're not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

412. what part of VOTING RECORDS do you NOT understand?

denial is NOT a river in Egypt....

I won't stop using these factual graphs. I use facts .....not my gut!

You've presented NOTHING!

[cui bono]

414. That's not all they use. You are being purposely ingenuous or you are incredibly stupid.

How do you not understand that when you throw in non-facts into the equation - speeches, quotes, campaign websites - you end up with something that is not factual and can't be taken seriously when evaluating where a politician stands on a political spectrum.

If you spent the time and effort you are spending here trying to convince me of a falsehood pushing to make Hillary move to the left she would be a commie by now!

And I presented plenty. I explained how that site is not factual. You just don't understand what facts are. And apparently I can't help that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

419. YES all they use....quotes hold up in a court of law as direct EVIDENCE!

You are wrong....

[cui bono]

421. You've lost the plot.

Completely.

Kind of funny but sad to see the unraveling first hand.

[VanillaRhapsody]

422. NO I havent....you are trying to prove some bullshit about quotes not being FACTS

and they DO use your words in COURT as actual EVIDENCE! Therefore they are FACTS to be considered...

You are losing it!~

But I understand you cannot admit you are seriously wrong!

[cui bono]

427. Okay, so you don't understand this at all I see.

This is my last post to you in this thread.

You have ended up here, saying that quotes are facts and can be used as evidence. That is true but that is an entirely different situation. If you don't get that you really need to go learn more.

So Obama said he was against free trade during the campaign. But he secretly pushes for TPP in reality.

What is the fact there?

You're seriously going to tell me that him saying he was against free trade is a fact that can be used to show that he is against free trade? That quote would be used to show evidence that he lied.

So that's fine, use the words as facts, but not as lies. Once you see that the campaign websites and promises, speeches and quotes are not true and do not match up with what they do/did in reality, they need to be discounted. But this site does not discount them. Therefore that site is rubbish.

If you can't understand how words don't mean anything in this situation since they don't reflect the actual record of the politician then you need to go get better educated.

And with that I'm done. Because you either really can't understand this, in which case there's no discussing it with you, or you are purposely being obtuse in an effort to try and make us believe Hillary is liberal, which she isn't, or you are loony tunes.

So bye. Go ahead and have the last word. Make it good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

435. I understand quite well...and Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.

your free to follow your gut.

[whopis01]

434. I was just explaining how to read the graph

I wasn't saying anything at all about the meaningfulness of the data or who it was about. Just strictly talking about the abstract concept of how that graph is composed.

Your response is quite puzzling.

[VanillaRhapsody]

436. I know how to read a graph quite well....thanks though....

[whopis01]

471. My post about how to read the graph was not a reply to your post - it was to someone else.

I never said anything about your ability to read a graph.

A different poster (cui bono) asked how they were tracking both issues with a single dot. My reply about turning the graph 45 degrees was to that post, not to any post of yours.

For some reason you then replied to me with something about that graph being about Bill Clinton and you having the proof to back it up and being sorry about something. I don't know if you thought my reply to cui bono was directed to you or if I was trying to argue against the point you were making, or what.

[VanillaRhapsody]

472. Oh...I am sorry...I thought you were cui bono...my mistake...

I was busy furiously responding to all the naysayers...

[cui bono]

401. Yeah, I don't think the graphs are meaningful in the least.

That they take into consideration speeches, quotes and campaign websites invalidates it right there. I also don't know what value they place on each item but to show anyone like Clinton as being that far left is beyond me.

Here's a heart for your answer and for you having to wade through all the inane posts in this thread.

[VanillaRhapsody]

406. Of course you don't .....Facts screw up YOUR narrative!

[cui bono]

408. That site doesn't present facts.

And that's the only "evidence" you are providing to back up your ludicrous claim that Hillary is liberal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

409. YES It does...

" They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]


What do you use....your gut?

[cui bono]

411. You left out speeches and quotes. And really, campaign websites?

Oh sure, politicians always do what they tell us they'll do when they are campaigning.

[VanillaRhapsody]

413. So what? THOSE are evidence too....would they NOT be used in a court of law?

Do what you say hold up in court?
YES it does....Sorry...."....can be held against you in a court of law"

YOUR words ARE facts....sorry but

.I am the one that is

[cui bono]

418. omg... seriously? Wow. You are so far gone it's mind boggling. Words are facts???

Well that post shows me you know you've lost it, so off I go to find a different merry go round.

[VanillaRhapsody]

420. Yeah serious.....Yes YOUR words CAN be used against you in a court of LAW

they can be used as actual EVIDENCE! So YEAH words ARE facts....when they are recorded for history!

[cui bono]

439. The moon is made of cheese. FACT!!! I said it out loud too, so it counts.

The world is flat. FACT!!! Again, I said it out loud so they were words.

See how that works? What someone says isn't necessarily the fact, that they said it at all and how it fits into the scheme of things is the fact. So broken campaign promises aren't facts if you take the promise as how they actually stand on an issue.

Seriously, you are not helping Hillary with these nonsensical posts of yours. You just make it look like all her rabid supporters are uneducated and blind loyalists who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[VanillaRhapsody]

440. Your actual quotes ARE facts....they can be used against you...

they also weighted different subjects.

You have not even bothered to investigate it. Your knee jerk reaction tells me so...


But yeah....you didn't use anything Pres. Obama said before he was elected to decide to vote for him right?

We don't use statements made to decide who to vote for....yeah right


hahahahahahaha

[cui bono]

441. We aren't discussing criteria used to pick who to vote for, we are discussing the illegitimacy

of that website's conclusions.

Or did you think I wouldn't notice your little deflection tactic.

You've just completely exposed yourself as disingenuous so I really am done.

[whopis01]

416. Thank you! n/t

[reusrename]

124. What issue is she liberal about?

Just curious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. visit the site...its all right there....

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

just to satisfy your curiosity....

[reusrename]

145. Yeah, I saw all that when you posted it.

I'm just asking 'cause I'm curious.

On what issue do you believe that she is more liberal than the American public.

I'm wonder what YOU think.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. then why are you asking me?

I am posting it because I DO agree with the assessment...

The evidence is right there....

[reusrename]

163. I am asking because I don't see anything where she is left of the public.

She's either with public opinion, or to the right, afaict.

That's why I was wondering if you could name a single issue where the public does not support her because they are more conservative than she is.

I honestly am curious. This isn't some sort of gotcha thing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. YOU might not....however THEY did and THEY listed it.....

go see for yourself!

they matched them up head to head on the issues....and Hillary came up the winner in the Liberal category.

Sorry....you don't agree but the facts don't support you....

[reusrename]

180. Fine. If you don't want to discuss it just say so.

I don't need a lecture from you about some link you posted to.

I CAN read you know. I already KNOW what they said.

They aren't shy about speaking out.

I was just wondering what you think, that's all.

It's not a crime to ask, you know.

[VanillaRhapsody]

187. I have provided what I am basing my positions on.....

I am not using knee jerk evidence...I am using documentation of evidence...facts...

[reusrename]

194. Ok.

[cui bono]

165. That is not evidence of their track record since they include quotes which mean nothing

when it's from a politician. That site cannot be taken seriously unless it is about the person's actual record and actions.

It is clearly flawed, as was pointed out by someone above, if it puts Rand Paul as more of a moderate than Hillary Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

193. bullshit! YOUR knee-jerk technique is false....

they use the totality of the available evidence....you don't.

That's called science!

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

there they are...there is the About Us page...

[Bjorn Against]

206. If it is science it should be put up for peer review

I can guarantee it won't be put up for peer review however because it is not real science.

[VanillaRhapsody]

208. Oh really? Where do you suggest "peer review"?

I guess Nate Silver was "peer-reviewed" too right?

Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO
MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University
Jesse Gordon, editor-in-chief & content manager
MPP Harvard University
Ram Lau, debate and convention coverage
Johns Hopkins University

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]

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

OnTheIssues has a reputation for helping voters to make educated decisions.[4] Among other things, they offer an online quiz "that aims to bring together the politically compatible – a wonk's version of an online dating service."[5] The "VoteMatch Quiz" has 20 questions, and matches users' answers against candidates for president and for Congress. The quiz also assigns a "political philosophy" by analyzing the answers on social issues versus economic issues.

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

[Bjorn Against]

218. They certainly don't call it peer review, they don't even call it science

Nowhere in the excerpt you posted does anyone call this science, nor does it appear that the people whose names you posted are scientists. Having an advanced degree does not make a person a scientist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

219. You've never heard of Political Science?

okaaaay....

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.[3]

[Bjorn Against]

220. Yes I have heard of political science

Having a field called political science does not make this web site science however.

[VanillaRhapsody]

221. Yes it does...

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.[3]

[Bjorn Against]

228. Your copy and paste job does not make it science either

Yes, there is a real social science referred to as political science, no one denied that. Just because there is a field called political science however that does not make this particular web site science. I have a degree in Sociology but that does not mean that any data I compile automatically becomes science.

Not even the site you keep linking to claims to be science, they are simply say they are educating people on the issues. As far as providing voting records their site is great, but their graphs are ridiculously bad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

230. more than your knee jerk opinions...

I didn't say they did claim it....

but here is what their wiki says:

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]

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

OnTheIssues has a reputation for helping voters to make educated decisions.[4] Among other things, they offer an online quiz "that aims to bring together the politically compatible – a wonk's version of an online dating service."[5] The "VoteMatch Quiz" has 20 questions, and matches users' answers against candidates for president and for Congress. The quiz also assigns a "political philosophy" by analyzing the answers on social issues versus economic issues.

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

[Bjorn Against]

234. You keep posting their mission statement as if it means something

I am pretty certain that even the people who run that site would tell you this is not science. I don't deny they provide some valuable information on voting records and such, but that does not make their red dot on a grid the end all be all of where candidates stand on the political spectrum. If you believe it is then your opinion is far more knee jerk than mine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

236. It DOES mean something....

My opinion is based on evidence (Political Science in fact)....you use anecdotal evidence....you want to use one or two issues...they use 25 CATEGORIES of issues...

[Bjorn Against]

243. So what are the one or two issues I base my opinion on?

You claim I base my opinion on one or two issues, please name those one or two issues or stop pretending you know what I base my opinion on.

I assure you that I base it on even more than 25 issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

248. I have no idea...that's 25 CATEGORIES of issues...

sorry to screw up your narrative...

[Bjorn Against]

257. And I often look at more than 25 issues when making a personal opinion on a candidate

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. its not just 25 issues...its 25 CATEGORIES of issues...

big difference...

Foreign Policy Gun Control Budget & Economy Education
Homeland Security Crime Government Reform Civil Rights
War & Peace Drugs Tax Reform Abortion
Free Trade Health Care Social Security Families & Children
Immigration Technology Corporations Welfare & Poverty
Energy & Oil Environment Jobs Principles & Values

[Bjorn Against]

260. Well I guess you could say I look at more than 25 categories of issues as well

I don't need a graph to tell me what to think about a candidate, I can learn a lot more about them by reading about them for myself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

261. You are "saying" but not proving....Big Difference...

I am proving my opinion!

I could "say" I am using a million issues....I could "say" I am using a GOZILLION issues....

but I am not...I am using FACTS

and YOU are not THIS team of experts:

Issues2000.org Staff
Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO
MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University
Jesse Gordon, content manager & technical manager
MPP Harvard University
Cathy D. Wanzo, content editor, Senate races
MPA Harvard University
Dr. Catherine A. Womack, content editor, Vice Presidential races
MA, Univ. of S.C.; PhD, MIT
Paul Hrabal, VoteMatch manager
Proprietor of GoVote.com

[Bjorn Against]

263. You are not proving either

Showing me a graph is not proof of anything, there is no scientific way of showing where someone falls on the political spectrum it is a subjective exercise.

What makes these people you cite such experts that their word is infallible?

[VanillaRhapsody]

265. Yeah I am...that's HOW you prove a thesis!

proof of concept...

have you heard of it?

I am using a compilation of

information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet

[Bjorn Against]

267. If you tried presenting your arguments in this thread as a thesis you would get a big fat F

[VanillaRhapsody]

268. No I wouldn't.....YOU would.

I am using

information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet

That's HOW you prove your point....EVIDENCE!

[Bjorn Against]

270. And I have used all those sorts of sources in forming my opinion

But I am smart enough to know that graphs from a political web site are not enough to prove a thesis.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. that is NOT a political "site" Sorry...

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity.

Besides...its chock full of facts to back them up! AND they make all of the evidence plain for you to see for yourself.


and by the way...isn't Democratic Underground a "political site"?

[Bjorn Against]

288. Yes it is a political site, and yes so is Democratic Underground

Sure there are lots of facts cited on the site, but it is not just facts that are important methodology is important as well. While their facts are mostly good their methodology is awful and their graphs are based more on their methodology than they are on the facts. The site is useful if you are looking for straight info on voting records, but its analysis of that info sucks.

[cui bono]

282. You can't prove an opinion. And you are not using facts.

The website you are using that you think is factual is not. It uses quotes and speeches from politicians. For those to be fact, everything they said they stood for would have to have come to pass. We all know that didn't happen. So you are basing your opinion on hearsay, not facts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

426. I am not using OPINION .....I have data Apparently YOU don't know what hearsay is...

Hearsay is NOT actual quotes! Recorded for historical FACT!

I guess what Thomas Jefferson SAID is just Hearsay!



Thats ridiculous....

[stillwaiting]

356. You have proved nothing VR.

What you continue to prove is that you are a condescending, blowhard bully.

I swear to God, when I read subthreads you are involved in it tries my patience like few others around here.

You are claiming that Hillary Clinton is a hard-core, left-wing liberal based on one site's determination using HER SPEECHES as a component basis for the categorization. This also completely ignores the sheer number of times it is SAFE for fake economic liberals to vote left in Congress because a particular bill has zero chance of passing, and yes, I am saying that Hillary Clinton is a fake economic liberal.

Hillary Clinton has STRONG support on DU with our most conservative members. In addition, she has VERY STRONG support from big business/banking. In addition, our most liberal members don't even know if they can vote for her. <-------- All of those things clearly show that Hilary Clinton is not a hard-core, left-wing liberal. It's a reputation based on her actions over the years. You can take to the floor and argue otherwise, but even most of her strongest defenders around here, for the most part, must be laughing at your characterizations (and On The Issues characterizations).

Lastly, Clinton has been a major player in drafting the TPP. The TPP apparently impacts MANY of the 25 groupings that you love to point to. If the TPP is as bad as the leaks have indicated, then Clinton could be partly responsible for the implementation of A LOT of very right-wing policies becoming the law of the land ALL AT ONCE. Of course, many will try and protect her from this and attempt to give her plausible deniability, but the totality of the ACTIONS of Hillary Clinton and the sources of her financial supporters should wake up anyone who has beliefs that Hillary Clinton will go against Wall Street and industry on behalf of average Americans.

Hillary Clinton is a strong social liberal AND she will further the interests of the elite/Wall Street. It seems that's the best we can get in today's America.

[VanillaRhapsody]

432. awwww did I hurt some fee fee's with my TRUTH!

[stillwaiting]

446. You could never hurt my feelings VR.

And I'm not going to do this with you.

This is it.

I have no idea why I even replied to you initially.

When I see the way you interact with people on this board, I have a very difficult time thinking that your motivations are pure and good.

It is possible to debate things in a civil manner, and I would love to see that done here more often. Your juvenile attitude really does shine through though, and you certainly do not attempt to debate in a civil manner.

Also, you sound just as ridiculous as the conservative, right-wing media pundits shouting and screaming about the TRUTH when they refuse to acknowledge the other FACTS on the table. Facts that you simply refuse, absolutely refuse, to admit exist.

YOU HAVE THE TRUTH!!!



Okay, I'm done.

[VanillaRhapsody]

461. Yes I do have the truth...thanks...

I don't actually care what YOU think my actions are...I am not here to please YOU...

I am here to stop this nonsense that Pres. Obama is somehow a Republican or even a "Centrist"...or that Hillary is NOT to the Left of Obama....


All of that is PATENTLY FALSE!

[tomg]

352. One of the things I

tend to do is find out information regarding folks on the mastheads of various organizations. Sometimes I even check out various boards of trustees. Dr. Lichtenberg is an interesting case. She was formerly ( might still be, info on these things often being sketchy) associated with Columbia Commonwealth University, a diploma mill based out of Missoula, Montana which, itself, came out of an even dicier background. I believe in its current manifestation, its accreditation, accepted pretty much nowhere in the US, comes from the government of Malawi. As someone who has sat on a lot of search committees, sometimes Ph.d really does mean "piled higher and deeper."

That does not discredit OnTheIssues ( or even Dr. Lichtenberg who was, I believe, CCU's accreditation officer) which I think does a service simply by supplying information to voters, particularly as to how one votes.

Regarding their chart, though, I think part of the problem is that terms like "conservative," "liberal" and such are notoriously slippery and, particularly given current uses as assigned to current politicans, the terms are so fluid that, in some ways, are meaningless, other than as general indicators. If the site had, say, certain established figures that by historical consensus we generally agree were "liberal" ( like FDR) or "conservative (Goldwater) or "populist" (Huey Long) and place them on the scale so we could whomevers position relative to that historical figure, it might help. There are other ways regarding social issues where one generation's liberal on economic issues is a later generation's sexist or homophobe or racist ( and probably all three).

[VanillaRhapsody]

437. Dr Lichtenberg is not the only one...

Issues2000.org Staff
Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO
MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University
Jesse Gordon, content manager & technical manager
MPP Harvard University
Cathy D. Wanzo, content editor, Senate races
MPA Harvard University
Dr. Catherine A. Womack, content editor, Vice Presidential races
MA, Univ. of S.C.; PhD, MIT
Paul Hrabal, VoteMatch manager
Proprietor of GoVote.com


Nice try though....no cigar!

[tomg]

452. Nice try...No cigar?

I think you missed the point of my post. First, I said I appreciated what they were doing. Second I suggested that the issue ( with the chart) might have been one of terminology and clarification. Third, I began at the top of the masthead ( CEO), and qualified it by saying that one position did not in and of itself invalidate the current position. Fourth, I gave my bona fides ( I've sat on x number of academic search committees and I know how to vet people).

What I did not add out of politeness is that I did quick runs on the lower levels ( she is the CEO; hence, one can assume she is the top). I was not sharp shooting you. Frankly, I have better things to do ( like prep my classes). I also didn't add that the individual in question on a first glance would not have gotten past the first round in an academic search( although with a full resume sent in, it seems, it could be different - I have also seen that - I am a case in point, but diploma mills are pretty dicey.

I have gone over my post. Possibly it is that the intertubes don't allow for the nuances of normal written discourse. Possibly it is that you are rather rude and defensive. Can't say. If the first, I apologize for missing the meaning of the curt " no cigar." If the second, well, as to Harvard, since I assume you are citing them as an authority? First, Bill O'Reilly has an MPA from Harvard. Second, in the current economy, lots of BAs and MAs and Ph.d's have to do what they have to do. I did (within reason).

There was no insult to you intended. But I really know my shit and how by looking at mastheads and following boards of trustees, you can really find out a lot of stuff. This is pretty low level.

edit: took out something that would identify my academic affiliation and get my chops busted. I'm too close to retirement.

[VanillaRhapsody]

458. You still got NOTHING!

She has been doing this since 2000....surely you can find something better in 14 years! 14 yrs and this is the BEST you can do?

Meanwhile she is not the ONLY one participating and putting their name on the work....

[tomg]

468. You are hopeless.

Actually since 2001, Dr. Lichtenberg has served as the director and corporate director of development for the Missoula Children's Theatre. Which is cool. Which I knew. She is doing good work, and I am not insulting anyone, certainly not the Missoula Children's theatre. I am not insulting or disparaging Children's theatre, GoVote, Dr. Lichtenberg or anything. Frankly, it sounds a lot saner than a lot of academe.

My only point was that the site's chart could be a little screwed or vague regarding how term's are used. I suggested that looking to a series of initials after a person's name is not necessarily a justification or sole standard. Her degree, incidentally, is in history. No problem, but it isn't necessarily stat heavy ( my field - Brit Modernism - and my specialty - manuscript reconstruction - are not either, but some of my poli sci friends, as with many social scientists, stat heavy).

Incidentally, no one is "putting their name on the work." It is not original research for God's sake. It is a good and legitimate gathering of resources that are useful as a start for people who want to figure out a) what a particular politician has said and b) how a particular politician has voted.

I am not even knocking anybody. Christ, it is basic Writing for College vetting a source. I teach this stuff - how to vet a source - to 18 to 20 year olds in a) Writing and b) upper division. Basic critical thinking. I'm done.

[VanillaRhapsody]

212. whoopsie....not just speeches...

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.

[grahamhgreen]

325. OMG! At it again? Not sure why you can't state her policy positions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

433. they're ALL right there for you to see for yourself...why do I need to repeat any of them

You want to know....go read the results....there are 25 categories of issues....Go for it!

[grahamhgreen]

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

[blackspade]

307. This site is full of shit.

They have Christie as a 'centrist' for fucks sake.
They are running fast and loose with their identifiers, 'progressive', 'populist', etc without defining their criteria.
Bloomberg is a progressive libertarian? Palin a populist conservative? What a joke.

[VanillaRhapsody]

428. Says YOU....

Prove it! The use actual evidence....

Here is Bill Clinton...I'd say spot on

[blackspade]

445. Is there a reason why you're pimping this site?

There are no clear metrics that would allow another person to duplicate this chart.
The methodology is unclear and the data is not quantified in any objective sense.

So yes, says me.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

485. Oh yes there are...look at the page...above the graph...it shows the metrics right there...

You are welcome to check it yourself...

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right (+5 points on Social scale)
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale) We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale) Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale) Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale) Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale) 1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale) OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
Human needs over animal rights
(+5 points on Social scale) $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale) Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale) Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale) Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale) Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Social scale) US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale) There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale) Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale) Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale) Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale) Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20

[blackspade]

487. You never answered my question...

Why are you pimping this site?

As for the metrics, there is no explanation of how the 'data' is scored.
What you posted is just the scoring, not how it is scored.
Without a clear methodology the scoring means nothing.
No where on the site does it disclose how they arrive at their conclusions through any sort of repeatable metric.

So all that crap you just posted is worthless.

[JDPriestly]

331. A hard-core liberal supported by Goldman Sachs and Walmart?

What you aren't understanding is that the big, big, decisive issue for 2016 is going to be the disparity in wealth and the plight of a losing middle class and a lost working class. It's going to be about getting the financial sector under some kind of sensible control, about never agreeing to a trade deal that will result in more lost jobs in the US, protecting Social Security, raising wages and increasing the taxes on the 1%.

[VanillaRhapsody]

424. Can you PROVE it?

or are you just guessing?

But I suppose YOU could run and win without taking ANY of that right? Good luck

[JDPriestly]

453. Here is the story on Walmart's owner Alice Walton donating to Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/george-soros-robert-soros-alice-walton-hillary-clinton-ready-for-hillary-102976.html

And Goldman Sachs:

Hillary Clinton spoke at two Goldman Sachs events over the past few days, the National Review's Alec Torres reports.

Clinton takes home about $200,000 per speech, which apparently is around the going rate for the "formers" of President Obama's cabinet. . . . .

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches-2013-10

You can read the details at the links.

[VanillaRhapsody]

459. and this disproves my graph how? As I said...if YOU think you can run today WITHOUT

corporate donations and win (or anyone for that matter) then I implore you or THEM to run and prove it.


Be my guest!

Did you not vote for Obama because he took corporate money?


It still doesn't disprove my graph

[JDPriestly]

465. Your graph is the product of the subjective analysis of some academics.

It is worthless.

Have fun with it, but there are several problems with the graph that make it worthless as evidence of anything.

First, the graph is based on the opinions of the people who made it as to what views are liberal, what views are libertarian, conservative, populist, etc. The fact is that the very act of quantifying the range of opinions is subjective, inevitably very subjective. Ask two different people and they will give you two different valuations of specific opinions on issues. And what is more those valuations will change from time to time.

Second, with regard to the grouping, classifying and enumerating or ranking of those views or opinions on issues, public opinion is constantly changing. On issues like abortion are pretty stable, you can rank opinions by party to some extent. But even there, some Republicans are conservative about other things but don't really care about abortion. Right now, the rankings on economic issues, for example, are in flux. During Bill Clinton's presidency we liberals did not really think there was any problem with the fact that our president was in so tight with Greenspan and Robert Rubin. The overreaching and selfishness of Wall Street was not that big an issue. But now, and in part thanks to the consciousness-raising by Occupy Wall Street, the crimes and economic grabbing by the 1% is foremost in many liberals' minds. That chart does not take into account the newer issues that are now developing into election determinants.

Also, the chart is frozen in time. Politics is not. The chart is worthless. If you presented it in a court of law, your opposition would present an equally worthless chart. Each of you would present an expert witness. I doubt that a court would let a jury hear of such worthless "evidence." Sorry, but the chart is not scientific.

In fact, political science is the study of an ever changing reality. It tries to be science, but sorry I think political science is a misnomer. Political analysis would be more appropriate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

466. verifiable FACTS are NOT subjective...

duh....they are right there....they compare those facts to all the other facts....and then use math to come to their conclusions...


man I love how desperate you all are to disprove this (it shows me JUST how right I am).....please keep it up so MORE people can see the truth!

[JDPriestly]

480. Opinions are not verifiable facts.

That chart is based on the opinion of someone that a particular point of view is "liberal." But what is liberal and what is not is a matter of opinion just as what is good and what is not is in political matters a question of opinion. As I pointed out, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are good examples of the fact that what is liberal refines itself all the time.

When Bill Clinton was in office, the economic policies of Robert Rubin and Greenspan were OK with liberal. I don't think that liberals are comfortable with those policies any more. That is because our reality is that the disparity in wealth between people like Robert Rubin and the rest of us has become intolerably great.

The Clintons could get a pass on their lack of concern for that disparity in wealth when Bill was president. But now, liberals are increasingly incensed at that disparity which is crippling our society. So I don't think that, if you could have a chart that accounted for the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in the ratings on issues by the majority of liberals that the ratings on that chart would be accurate.

Ted Cruz is way, way conservative. His ideas are so far to the right that the chart which is not keeping up with current attitudes, which, in fact, cannot keep up with current attitudes, can reflect how Cruz has changed the ranking of issues. The issues that determine conservatives from liberals, etc. are constantly changing. That's why the chart can approximate a very loose categorization of potential candidates, but is no by any means accurate in this time of great change in those attitudes.

That chart could never make it into a court. It is too subjective. If you are relying on it, you are not relying on facts. You are relying on subjective judgments made by academics somewhere. You are not relying on facts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

481. It is NOT opinion....they are USING actual VOTES and Statements...

from all perspectives...those are averaged...and then they use those figures to create charts and graphs...


Jesus people do you not know how science works? Science is not about absolutes.....they use these same techniques to come to conclusions...

Do you believe in Climate Change? They use figures to determine that after having come up with averages overall....

You cannot SEE gravity....but the theory tells us it is there.....

It is THAT simple.

[JDPriestly]

488. Yes. I understand. But you are dealing with opinions.

I was one of the polled by a major polling organization. They give you a couple of choices mayge spanning 6 possible attitudes. There is no measure of the actual opinion of the person being polled. Those polls may be able to predict who will win an election now. But as we all know, the poll results change constantly because people change their minds, because it depends on who is being polled and because people like me do not have an accurate reflection of their true opinion to choose from. That is utterly unreliable.

A poll may say that Hillary is ahead now. In two years, when it is time to vote, Hillary may be way behind.

The issues I am pointing to are issues that are not yet written large in the body politic. But I am quite certain that I can predict that the malfeasance of Wall Street and the banks and the disparity in wealth will be huge issues by 2016 unless the Obama administration finds the courage to really do something about them. Frankly, I don't think the Obama administration will find that courage. I suspect however that as the economy worsens for working people, and it will in the next few years, Republicans will run on the idea that the lagging economy is due to Obama's ACA and to the failure of Democrats to balance the budget.

The only way that we can get economic change that we need is if we elect a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren who will run on the platform of strengthening our economy through higher taxes on the 1% and increased spending on education and infrastructure development. Raising the minimum wage will also be an issue.

These are not Hillary's stances. She will have trouble convincing me or other liberals that she can stand tall on say, a tax on transactions for Wall Street. But we need that if we are to keep our country unified and strong.

By 2016, the word liberal will be defined very differently than it was by your friends who created that chart. The chart is worthless as a tool for deciding which of our politicians will be considered liberal and how liberal by 2016.

[VanillaRhapsody]

482. Here are the figures....

Based on these stances:

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right (+5 points on Social scale)
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale) We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale) Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale) Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale) Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale) 1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale) OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
Human needs over animal rights
(+5 points on Social scale) $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale) Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale) Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale) Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale) Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Social scale) US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale) There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale) Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale) Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale) Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale) Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20

[JDPriestly]

489. Hillary is liberal on social issues.

But she is conservative on economic issues. Economic issues are going to loom large in 2016.

I remember that embarrassing moment in 2008 when, in a debate with Obama about raising the cap to fund Social Security she characterized people earning $250,000 a year as middle class. Millions of us were just aghast at how out-of-touch she was. She will be even more out of touch with the rest of America on that issue in 2016.

Social issues are important, but increasingly the economic issues on which Hillary is weak are important.

It is going to take more than a kindly, cooperative village to bring the American economy back into the realm of justice and inclusion. I don't think she is at all ready for that. She would have to step on the toes of a lot of her friends if she did.

[VanillaRhapsody]

491. bullshit...she may not be as far left on economic issues as you would like....but its bullshit

to call her views Conservative....Do you consider her to be further to the right than her husband?


Besides that. to determine if someone is a Liberal or not....you use ALL issues...not just your pet one!

[JDPriestly]

493. i'm using the issue that I believe will be uppermost in people's minds in 2016.

[VanillaRhapsody]

494. It doesn't work like that...ONE issue doesn't determine that....sorry

That is what is wrong with this position "certain" people have.....EVERYONE will have their own "pet" issues...that's why they call us the "big tent"....or do you WANT to emulate what they are doing on the Right? Because they purged their party too....that is exactly what the Teaparty is all about and why they are gumming up the works for the GOP in the House....

[JDPriestly]

499. I think that the 2016 election may center around core economic issues.

Getting people out to vote will be the big challenge. Economic issues are what will get people to the polls.

[VanillaRhapsody]

500. that doesn't answer the question though does it?

[JDPriestly]

502. What I am saying is that I think that voters who go to the polls in 2016 will go

because they are inspired and caused to hope by the candidate's views on economic issues. I don't think Hillary will do well in that area.

I find the machine behind Hillary to be push, over-confident and rude.

Hillary is totally out of touch with ordinary people.

If the Republicans run a really horrible candidate, which they almost certainly will, Hillary may have a chance. But she is a person many people do not like, a person with a controversial past (not entirely of her own making) and with questionable credentials on the economic issues that I believe will be central to the 2016 campaign.

[VanillaRhapsody]

503. You don't KNOW that....this IS subjective....

My graph from datapoints....IS NOT the same as YOUR gut feeling!

Hillary IS NOT ....and all you have to do is read the EVIDENCE...presented before you that culminated in that graph...

Sorry but this is YOUR opinion and NOT based on ANY facts.....just what you have read and seen and that is your "impression". BUT you are biased..... I am NOT using my gut...I am using a series of 25 CATEGORIES of issues....lots of issues within each category...and from that....a picture of the candidates beliefs.

Individual groups such as Planned Parenthood do the SAME exact thing to determine a grade on individual candidates speeches and voting records etc to determine how that person stands on for example Women's issues.

This is how demographics are created too...its how its done...

PERIOD end of story.

[JDPriestly]

504. That is something we can agree on.

That is my subjective opinion. Just as that chart is based on the subjective opinion of those who created it. Their measures are subjective. So are mine. And we are in that sense all entitled to our opinions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

505. NO its not based on opinions....its based on the answers the candidates have in each

category on things they have said...or things they have voted on...or several other items...all admissable in court! THAT is called evidence...

It's not based on what a bunch of people put there opinions of that politician in each category....its based on the actual words and deeds of SAID politician...

If you disagree...take the test yourself...its right there....see if you agree where it puts you....

[JDPriestly]

509. But what I am trying to explain is that the questions themselves reveal a bias,

and the judgment as to where the answers to the questions rank people is also subjective. That is why I explained to you that I was one of a large group of people polled by a major polling company. I have stopped answering the polls partly because how anonymous is a poll if the NSA is collecting all your answers? In addition, most importantly because polls in general are very flawed. They try to find out your views on complex issues by asking very simplistic questions and limiting your choice of answers to a very narrow range of alternatives that do not permit the person being polled to think beyond the simplistic boundaries the poll arbitrarily establishes.

If you have a poll near an election in which you ask voters whether they are likely to vote and for whom they will vote, the results may establish a good basis for predicting the outcome of the election. But tests and polls to determine how liberal or conservative a person is that are used 3 years before an election are useless.

The very task of determining what questions to ask makes the test arbitrary. And then the task of ranking opinions as more or less liberal, more or less conservative and then determining whether a person is liberal or conservative and to what degree is absurd. Right now, LGBT issues and race issues could be used as factors in determining whether a person is liberal or conservative. But we all know that many LGBT people and people of very different races are in fact, sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative. A very conservative fundamentalist Christian in some respects might be gay, might belong to a racial minority. That one opinion would cause that person to be rated as more liberal than the person is in fact. The ratings are absurdly subjective. And most of the issue, the overwhelming number of issues you listed as deciding relative liberal and conservative, etc. ratings is based on past rankings of the opinions held by liberals, conservatives, etc. The chart might reflect the categorizations at a moment in time. But it is useless in determining who is liberal and who is conservative according to the situation next year or the year after. It really does not show how liberal or conservative Hillary Clinton will be considered to be in 2016. She is becoming more and more indebted to right-wing conservatives and financial and economic conservatives.

The Clintons hob-nob with the likes of Pete Peterson, the arch-enemy of Social Security. Hillary would have to explain that. The statements that Bill makes in the presence of the Pete Peterson crowd are pretty awfully centrist to conservative.

Hillary started with a shout out to Rajiv Shah, Obama's Chief of USAID and former executive with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's time for a "new mindset for a new century." She envisions rebuilding USAID into "the world's premier development agency."

http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2010/01/hillary-clinton-speaks-from-peter-g.html

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/05/16/the-pete-peterson-fiscal-summit-and-what-it-says-about-democrats/

[VanillaRhapsody]

484. Now WTF do you have on all ^^^^ those issues to dispute it...

It is NOT just a chart....they just made up out of whole cloth sorry to burst your bubble. There are actual points of data they used to make it...

Its not just some pretty picture they just came up with out of their heads....

[delrem]

233. That chart is the very definition of 'emptiness'. Jeez... what a pretty picture!

And I can push a dot around, and "debate" about the dot!
I can "debate" about what the best position is for the dot!
I can claim actual people coincide with the dot!
What a dot!
See Jane see! See the dot!
See Dick see! See the dot!
Move dot move! See the dot move!
"Oh oh!" said Dick. "Oh oh!" said Jane!
The dot went up!
The dot went right!
See the dot move!

[VanillaRhapsody]

237. Only to those that disagree with the findings....

I like evidence to support my contentions....I don't just knee jerk. I want ALL the evidence.

[delrem]

286. There is evidence, then there's "See Jane see! See the dot!" nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

287. YES it IS evidence....what the heck are YOU using for evidence?

Denial is NOT a river in Egypt "Jane" Read Jane Read!

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]

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

OnTheIssues has a reputation for helping voters to make educated decisions.

[delrem]

290. See the dot! See the dot move! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

291. the dots aren't moving....you better get your eyes checked...

I am sure these people do not "move dots"

Issues2000.org Staff
Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO
MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University
Jesse Gordon, content manager & technical manager
MPP Harvard University
Cathy D. Wanzo, content editor, Senate races
MPA Harvard University
Dr. Catherine A. Womack, content editor, Vice Presidential races
MA, Univ. of S.C.; PhD, MIT
Paul Hrabal, VoteMatch manager
Proprietor of GoVote.com

I will trust them not you....

[Bjorn Against]

292. How many of those people were you familiar with before you copied and pasted their names?

Do you even know why you consider these people to be experts? Do you know anything about their backgrounds? What makes the proprietor of GoVote.com an expert that us mere mortals can not question?

[VanillaRhapsody]

293. Do you not consider them experts...they have been doing this since 2000....

I'd say they have it pretty perfected now...

[Bjorn Against]

296. I don't believe there are experts when it comes to political analysis

There are people with lots of knowledge about politics, but analysis of politics involves a lot of opinion and I have no trust in anyone who tries to pretend their analysis is objective fact.

[VanillaRhapsody]

297. Uh yes there are...Political Science ring any bells?

Objective facts include:

They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

They do this with ALL pols....not just one party...this is a head to head comparison.

which is where they get their info from...

[Bjorn Against]

298. As I said repeatedly I get my info from those same sources, I use objective fadts to form my opinion

I also took a few political science courses in college, my professors were knowledgable but I never considered them experts at political analysis. I don't consider anyone an expert at political analysis, I believe analysis of politics is too subjective to be left to "experts".

[VanillaRhapsody]

300. BUT you are not compiling them and using algorithms to come to your conclusions...

You are not an expert...

[Bjorn Against]

305. Politics is not math so no I don't use algorithms to form my opinion

And quite frankly I think it is stupid to use a mathematical algorithm to form your opinion on where a candidate stands on the issues. Not all issues are created equally but the graph you use treats them all equally, I give the issues weight according to what I feel is important. It is not math, it does not use any algorithms, but it is a lot more meaningful to me than any graph you can throw in my face. It may not be meaningful to anyone else, but that is OK because it is my opinion and my opinion consists of a lot more than "SEE THE RED DOT!!! SEE THE DOT!!! YOU CAN'T DENY THE DOT!!!". It is my personal opinion and I don't feel the need to prove my opinion correct, but I sure as hell won't let anyone tell me I am not allowed to disagree with them on something as subjective as where a candidate falls on the political spectrum.

[VanillaRhapsody]

309. tell that to Nate Silver...

He sees the dots and connects them

[Bjorn Against]

358. Nate Silver did not make these graphs, his methodology is very different

You can cite Nate Silver when you are citing Nate Silver's actual work rather than the work of people who are in no way associated with Silver, but I think Nate Silver would be the first to tell you that his algorithms don't work with subjective data.

[VanillaRhapsody]

398. try to keep up...it wasnt about Nate Silver....

it was about DATA!! How you use data....he uses Algorythyms to make his predictions....

And this is NOT subjective data.....its right there actual quotes AND physical votes...that is NOT subjective.

[Bjorn Against]

455. Then why the hell did you bring up Nate Silver?

You don't use algorithms to determine political ideology, that is why Nate Silver does not produce idiotic graphs that suggest Rand Paul is closer to a moderate position than Hillary Clinton is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

457. because it was said you cannot use MATH to do politics...

which is patently
FALSE

Yes Rand Paul IS .....he is FOR legalizing Marijuana AND against Mandatory minimums AND he wants to bring troops home from ALL foreign soil...TRUE Conservatives like Ted Cruz DO NOT agree with those positions!

That is why...

You have NOTHING to prove your position other than your gutteral repulsion...

[Bjorn Against]

462. You obviously don't understand the difference between polling data and political ideology

Nate Silver uses math to analyze polling data, he does not use math to analyze where a person lands on the political spectrum. This thread is not about polling data so Nate Silver is completely irrelevent.

[VanillaRhapsody]

463. Its not about polling....its about SCIENCE....and whether it is science..

DUH!

Nate used it to make PREDICTIONS based on datapoints....which is EXACTLY what they are using here...DATAPOINTS and they use an algorithm just like NATE silver uses to solve for X.

[Bjorn Against]

464. Nobody except you calls that site science

Nate Silver would be the first to tell you that he is not doing exactly what the people who run the site you are promoting are doing.

Nobody who knows anything about science would claim that website of yours is science, not even the people who run that site claim it is science. Only you claim it is science and the only reason you claim it is science is because you have no clue what you are talking about.

[VanillaRhapsody]

495. Political Science...perhaps you have heard of it?

Nate silver does it as well....he does the math...and THAT is how you make that graph...with MATH! Algebra is your friend!

What do you think they did....threw darts at it? Jeebus on a cracker!

[Bjorn Against]

496. Your argument reminds me of someone else's

"It’s clearly a budget. It’s got lots of numbers in it.”
― George W. Bush

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90484-it-s-clearly-a-budget-it-s-got-lots-of-numbers-in

[VanillaRhapsody]

498. When totally desperate.....find a way to compare them to George w. Bush!

I know...that's in Chapter 17 of the manual!

[cui bono]

308. Words from speeches and press releases are not objective facts when it comes to determining where

a politician lands on the political spectrum. Not to mention, the spectrum itself is subjective as you can see by the pic below. You think you're dealing with facts but you are not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

310. its NOT just speeches...its actual VOTING records!

Over and over I have to keep repeating that because you are in denial...

[cui bono]

313. Why can't you understand that when you mix in non-facts like speeches and campaign websites

you no longer are dealing with facts?

You can keep repeating it as much as you like it won't make that site and it's graphs factual. The voting record is diluted with propaganda. And then on top of that, whatever they are using as their spectrum to determine what is left/center/right is completely subjective.

Give it up. As you can see you haven't convinced one person yet in this thread, hard as you try.

[VanillaRhapsody]

317. No I won't.....I haven't convinced you because you refuse to accept the facts laid before you...

[cui bono]

320. They are not facts. You know that. Propaganda is used in their assessment.

[MoonchildCA]

380. Rachel Maddow has her doctorate in political science.

Does that mean everything she says is objective fact and not opinion? I mostly agree with her opinions, and she draws them from facts, but still they are opinions.

Anyone can "prove" anything with science to a layman, depending on how an experiment is set up. The premise can easily be faulty. That's why things are peer reviewed before they are accepted as fact or theory.

And by the way, political science is a liberal art. My daughter just received her BA in it, and she would, by know means, claim to be scientist, political or otherwise. The most "sciency" class she needed for her major was statistical application in the social sciences. That one class did not make her a scientist.

[delrem]

295. See the dots on the picture! See see see!

Look look!
Follow follow! Follow the dots!
Trust trust! Trust the dots!

"Oh oh!" said Dick.
"Look!"
"Look at me follow the dots!"

[VanillaRhapsody]

301. Whatever...I guess you are still not ready to read the "hard stuff"..

You can just go back to coloring then...

[delrem]

302. See see! See the dot! The dot is red! Red red red! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

311. I am sure Nate Silver would agree there is nothing to be found in dots...

but then again...I seriously doubt it

[delrem]

328. Look Dick look! See the dots!

Deep deep deep!
See the deep red dots!

Vote vote vote!
Follow the dots!

USA USA USA!

[VanillaRhapsody]

430. You ARE learning to read ....GOOD For you delrem

we are all so proud of you...

[delrem]

447. Yup. I learned early to distinguish parlor games from analysis. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

460. parlor games? Prove it!

Everything is right out in the open for you to see....nothing "parlor" about it...

I will stick with their analysis versus someone who still reads Dick and Jane

[delrem]

469. Others have already proven it in these "VanillaRhapsody" threads.

You just don't acknowledge it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

473. NOT ONE has proven JACK!

the Usual Suspects have all chimed in.....but they got NADA except desperation....and boy howdy do I LOVE the smell of desperation.

[delrem]

474. Not to you're mind, VanillaRhapsody. But that doesn't count.

[VanillaRhapsody]

475. Not to anyone's mind...."Nuh uh"....is not proof!

denial is NOT proof...

[bvar22]

387. "disagree with the "findings"

[RufusTFirefly]

330. Clinton and Obama are rivals in the Left Liberal quadrant???

Egads, we truly have gone through the Looking Glass.

Orwell rolls in his grave. As does FDR.

[nikto]

342. These charts are misleading

Here's Rahm Emmanuel---Some "Liberal"!



============================================================================

Here's "less-Liberal" Alan Grayson:





Any more questions on these bullshit charts?


Didn't think so.

[Revanchist]

350. It all depends on how the issues are calculated and evalulated

Political Compass puts Ms. Clinton to the right of the president in the 2008 primaries.



http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

[NorthCarolina]

378. Now there's the correct chart...can easily be verified by the facts AND through simple observation.

I'm not sure why the authoritarians are working so hard to paint Hillary as a Liberal. It is truly ridiculous. Why not simply proclaim her corporate/Wall Street bent, and then attempt to sell that to the public by campaigning on the merits of that political stripe, instead of pretending to be something she is not for campaign purposes. The public was fooled by Obama in that regard, how stupid does she think the voters are? Or, is it simply a case of knowing that she is the only one that will make it out of the Wall St vetting process, and the people can just suck it up and choose either her, or her GOP counterpart?

[NorthCarolina]

362. LOL...photoshop much? No thinking person would buy what those charts purportedly represent.

Hillary is no Liberal, and to claim otherwise is pure BS.

[RC]

89. Give it up. No one believes you

Besides the evidence points more toward Hillary and Obama being a little to the Right side of Center.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. bullshit! See above...

They ARE most assuredly NOT
Obama:


Clinton...

[cui bono]

294. Meaningless graph is meaningless.

[VanillaRhapsody]

312. Oh no it isn't....Your opinions are what are meaningless...

everyone has those...

[cui bono]

314. Then why do you keep reading and responding to my posts?

[VanillaRhapsody]

315. because you keep replying to mine...duh!!

[cui bono]

316. Cool.

[VanillaRhapsody]

318. Yes I am...

[zeemike]

91. If she runs I don't think she will win.

And I noticed the Issa now back peddled on her involvement in Bengazi...and the tells me the GOP wants to run against her...probably because they have much ammo to fire against her...unlike someone new...and they know people are tired as hell of the dynasty crap in politics
That is why Obama won.

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. Oh yes she will.....

of course they want to run against her....she is the most hated person of the Right Wingers...they have hated her SINCE Bill Clinton only because she didn't divorce him as they hoped.

Her win will be a sweet sweet sweet victory for me too....I have some folks back home I want to throw her into their faces!

[MannyGoldstein]

96. Cool! Show us a link to Warren's words.

Whatever "encouraged" means.

Thanks in advance!

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. Okay....I got one...

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/kimberly_atkins/2013/12/elizabeth_warren_steps_out_of_hillary_clintons_way

[cui bono]

103. Where does it say Warren encouraged Hillary?

Encouraged being the key word.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. How is stepping out of the way....not encouraging?

you want the exact word? That's just silly...

[cui bono]

109. How is stepping out of the way encouraging someone?

Did she say she wanted Hillary to run? Did she say she thinks Hillary should run?

I'm not saying it has to be the exact word, but the meaning of the word is necessary. Stepping out of the way in no way means encouraging.

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. No but she did sign the letter from ALL the Dem Ladies....

in support of Hillary....so...there is that. Those women are bonded quite strongly....

[fadedrose]

144. It could also mean that by her stepping out of the way

maybe more people she feels qualified may decide to run. Warren is stiff competition for anyone - Biden or any one of our many excellent Senators (Sherrod Brown, Durbin, others like Connecticut's look promising), and some of you have mentioned some governors.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. but she also signed the secret Letter from "the ladies"

that encouraged Hillary to run...

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Seriously?

Yow.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. the secret letter mentioned above is another....

Those ladies are quite strongly bonded...they meet and work together. Lots are impressed with how much the women stick together...

[MannyGoldstein]

122. Secret letter.

Must be a national security issue, can't let the Russkies see it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

195. No but those ladies are bonded.....it's been spoken of many times...

how the ladies meet regularly and they get shit done......they sent the letter to encourage Hillary to run...Elizabeth Warren signed it too...

[MannyGoldstein]

204. Bonded.

Well OK.

[VanillaRhapsody]

207. Yes they are....its been spoken of many times....

the ladies brokered the deal to end the Ted Cruz govt shutdown...

[MannyGoldstein]

209. The secret letter from the bonded ladies.

Sounds pretty fearsome.

[VanillaRhapsody]

211. they signed it and all agreed to "encourage" (that word you were looking for remember)

Hillary to run...INCLUDING Elizabeth Warren.

Your deflection non-withstanding....

[MannyGoldstein]

214. Encourage. Yes.

And you can show me that letter. Sorry, I forgot, it's a secret.

Why do you think it's a secret? National security concern? Perhaps they put their credit card numbers on it to contribute to Hillary's campaign?

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. fine...

here's my proof..
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

[MannyGoldstein]

217. But why is it secret?

Perhaps they're discussing war plans already?

[VanillaRhapsody]

224. the ladies? Yeah right....

[cui bono]

104. Link please? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. Okay....here you go...,

ABC News:

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

[cui bono]

114. Thanks. And yuck!

Hopefully she reconsiders supporting a corporatist since she's railing against that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

197. Yeah well when she becomes President after Hillary I am sure you will see....

and then promptly throw her under the bus too because she will also "let you down" because a President is not a miracle worker.

She won't reconsider that letter....

[VanillaRhapsody]

198. and Hillary is NOT a corporatist...she is a Populist leaning Liberal!

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

[JDPriestly]

329. It's early. That can change. Probably will.

[morningfog]

492. How many times have you been PPR'd?

[INdemo]

152. I agree we dont't need another corporatist

Warren is the person we need at this time in our history. Hillary has billionaires ready and waiting to throw the bucks her way should she decide to run. I really thought a President Obama would be true to his promises during the campaign going into his second term. I mean he went from a corporatist to a progressive during his campaign and now he is right back to the right of center. Wall street and the corporate America own him. Obama has appointed Republicans to key cabinet posts,he has allowed Social Security and Medicare to be put on the table for budget negotiations and that's just one example. Hillary would no doubt convince us she too is a progressive center or left but the big bucks will own her.
So I agree Hillary would govern to please her billionaire contributors.

[VanillaRhapsody]

199. Good because she is not one....she is a Populist leaning Liberal...

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

[INdemo]

527. She has millionaires and billionaires waiting to back her if

she gives the word.(would mean political payback of course) I don't agree that she is a liberal or progressive. Better than a Tea Bagger Republican of course but I think we are ready for Liz Warren and we need a real liberal Democrat ..and Biden is certainly much more of a liberal than his boss...A great ticket for 2016 would be Biden/Warren even.

[VanillaRhapsody]

528. You don't have to agree with it...but NO one yet has had more credible evidence that she isn't

Liz Warren is not ready to run...she is going to back Hillary...she already signed the Letter from the Ladies of the Senate supporting Hillary.
btw (I would support Biden if he decides to run). But Hillary Clinton is the likely candidate and right now the likely next President.

[INdemo]

529. I agree to disagree and

of course I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination but I would rather see a more liberal candidate. I thought that President Obama would be more liberal this term..He certainly was or talked like a real liberal during the campaign but guess what after he started his second term he is more like a Republican-lite.(again)
...But then lets face it we have so many so called Democrats that are just blowing smoke and are getting the same corporate grooming as Republicans ..No I haven't been living under a rock all this time, but I am still hoping for a down to earth liberal President but that will probably never happen in my voting life. Liz Warren though is my kind of Democrat and Grayson and maybe a couple more.

[VanillaRhapsody]

530. she IS a Liberal....this meme is ridic!

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

Candidate's Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:


Personal Score 73%
Economic Score 13%

Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate's Personal score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate's political philosophy. Based on the above score, the candidate is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=3&a8=1&a9=5&a10=5&a5=5&a6=4&a7=5&a14=1&a15=2&a16=4&a19=4&a17=3&a18=1&a20=2&a11=1&a12=4&a13=1&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=73&e=13&t=16

You are allowed your opinion....just NOT your own truth.

[JDPriestly]

531. It's time we talk about economic justice. That has been a taboo topic since Reagan.

But today the evidence is in. The Piketty book, the dreariness and predominance of cheap imports on Main Street USA not just in small towns but in the less wealthy areas of big cities, stagnant wages, fewer homeowners than in many years, the unmanageably high cost of a good education for most American families, foreclosures, bankruptcies, one of the highest if not the highest incarceration rate in the world, etc., etc. are symptoms of deep problems.

As a nation we seem to have assumed that when a person fails to become economically fairly independent and stable in what most Americans erroneously believe is the richest country in the world, the failure is to be blamed on the individual.

We need to investigate that premise. We haven't really examined it since Reagan was elected, maybe even before that.

Trickle down doesn't work. So what does? As a nation, we need to talk about it.

We are all one. What we do unto the least among us . . . .

[Awknid]

4. I saw it.

Was surprised also. But I completely agree with her. I think she forgot a point she should have added -- Hillary is a hawk and the right is aching for another war! Don't trust her on the war thing!

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[rhett o rick]

6. Clinton-Sachs may be progressive on social issues, but she is not the one to

pump life back into the middle class.

[VanillaRhapsody]

202. Oh really?

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

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal

[NorthCarolina]

425. Good luck trying to sell that completely bogus chart...LOL

Hillary the 'Left Liberal'.... BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA

[G_j]

7. K&R

[Hun Joro]

8. Crystal Ball just gained huge respect from me!

I haven't seen much from her, and sad to say was a bit put off by her name. I know, shallow, right?

[Awknid]

11. Her name used to bother me too

She has to prove herself twice as much as someone with a "typical" name. I would have changed my name if I were her. I believe we never should create more obstacles for ourselves.

[dorkzilla]

82. Her dad did his dissertation on crystals, so maybe she is honoring him by keeping it. n/t

[DFW]

442. Not maybe. He chose her name based on his work. n/t

[dorkzilla]

444. Yes, that's what I said. The question posed was "why wouldn't she change her name". n/t

[DFW]

449. Why should she?

She grew up with it and never suffered because of it. People just call her Krystal and never give it a second thought.

[dorkzilla]

467. Huh??? No one said she should change her name!

I didn't suggest she should change her name. The question was posed as to why didn't she change her name…and I said she was named because of her father's dissertation and perhaps she was keeping it to honor her dad.

[JaneyVee]

108. You guys, it's KRYSTAL.

[MADem]

87. It's worse than you realize--she spells it with a K!

She'd better not marry a Kardashian....!

[bowens43]

9. I agree completely

[arthritisR_US]

10. They need someone not in the back pocket of Big Business. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. what makes you think that?

she is Left of President Obama....

[arthritisR_US]

38. I think she and her husband or too tied into the Wall Street thieves. Also her

ties to WalMart dating back to their Arkansas days makes me gag.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. She hasn't worked there for many many years....

and in those days I believe Sam Walton was alive and Walmart was much different when old Sam ran things...Much has changed since then...Sam would roll over in his grave if he knew what his spawn have done to this country.

[arthritisR_US]

57. I guess I'm like Chrystal, I was for her the first time but her position on

outsourcing, TPP, the tied at the hip to the DLC I just have my misgivings. Wish I didn't but I do and I say that because I have immense respect for her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Well no one....NO one...has the gravitas to win....

and mark my words....the Right have a thorn in their side...they WILL be showing strong....they will be fired up and they are still formidable in their anger. The one person that knows them better than they know themselves is Hillary. They have nothing left to throw at her...she has dodged it all.. Not to mention the pleasure it will be to put Hillary Clinton in after Barack Obama....they HATE HATE HATE with a burning passion Hillary Rodham Clinton...BELIEVE THAT....

[arthritisR_US]

64. If it came down that she won the nomination for prez, there's no way I wouldn't support

her. The worst thing that could happen to your country is a repube in that office! She is one tough dame and you have to respect her all the more for it

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. and I do....and I knew before Barack Obama won the primary that Hillary was left of him

and why I supported her first....but when he won....I got onboard.

[arthritisR_US]

69. The alternative is a nightmare!

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. Which is why you go with your A-team....

Defense defense defense....or else its two steps forward...three or more steps back!

[JDPriestly]

332. Walmart is among Hillary's current supporters.

Wal-Mart scion Alice Walton, financiers George and Robert Soros and the law firm of liberal megadonors Steve and Amber Mostyn all cut $25,000 checks to Ready for Hillary last year, the super PAC said in a public filing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/george-soros-robert-soros-alice-walton-hillary-clinton-ready-for-hillary-102976.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

201. Here is her husband...

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

compared to her...


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

[polichick]

12. Surprised me too - but she's right, HRC isn't the one for this moment.

[antigop]

13. Hillary: "Outsourcing will continue..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html|

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

So which outsourcing IS she against? And who is "we"? The DLC/Third Way/Corporate Dems?

[Enthusiast]

26. I am totally convinced.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. "not against all outsourcing"

she is talking reality....that doesn't end just because we change administrations...no matter WHO takes over...It will not end overnight....Clinton is only being honest there.

[MFrohike]

164. Then what good is she?

Honestly, if she's unwilling or unable to do the real work to change our self-destructive trade policies, she's unfit for the office.

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. You don't like honesty in a candidate?

A President cannot just wave a magic wand and end all outsourcing....it is not going to happen. No matter WHO gets power.

[MFrohike]

179. I don't like uselessness

There is broad support in this country for changing our trade practices. The fact she's given up before even trying is a strong indicator that she doesn't care or understand about that support. That is why she's unfit for the office.

The magic wand line is tiresome and stupid. It's one thing to point out that a president doesn't have the votes, it's quite another to trot it out when the prospective candidate wouldn't use the wand if she had it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

182. A President is ONLY a President...sorry....but they cannot make THAT

happen over night (and no not even Elizabeth Warren).

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.


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

but how does she compare to her husband....

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

[MFrohike]

183. Oh brother

If you don't understand me when I say something, just say it. Don't waste time posting random graphs from the internet that have all the validity of a bad photoshop.

[VanillaRhapsody]

227. I understand you quite well....

No they have plenty of validity THEY use FACTS! You just use your knee-jerk.

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]

The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

OnTheIssues has a reputation for helping voters to make educated decisions.[4] Among other things, they offer an online quiz "that aims to bring together the politically compatible – a wonk's version of an online dating service."[5] The "VoteMatch Quiz" has 20 questions, and matches users' answers against candidates for president and for Congress. The quiz also assigns a "political philosophy" by analyzing the answers on social issues versus economic issues.

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

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[MFrohike]

242. No, you really don't

For ease of understanding and layout, I'll use bullet points:

1. The Clinton quotation from 2005 clearly shows her disinterest in dealing with the problem of outsourcing. You can wave the magic wand flag all day long about the constraints on a president, but that's a smokescreen when you're dealing with a potential president who is not interested in the problem, magic wand or not. That is the point you clearly didn't understand or you wouldn't have posted a meaning graph in lieu of an actual answer.

2. I suggest you read your source material and not what some nerd posted on Wikipedia. In the Free Trade section from the link you provided, On The Issues has a serious problem with their material. They claim that she was both for and against NAFTA. It's probably a typo, I hope, but it doesn't inspire much confidence.

3. From your own source again, her record on trade is at best mixed. She talks a lot about tougher worker protections, but she voted for every free trade treaty except CAFTA. She did that while complaining about how weakly they protected American workers. She voted to establish normal trade relations with Vietnam and was supportive of the same with China. This is not a populist stance on trade, though it's not an unabashed free trader either.

[VanillaRhapsody]

250. you have 3 bullets....they have HUNDREDS!

25 CATEGORIES of issues...

You have 3 bullet points as a rebuke...

keep trying...

[MFrohike]

272. Binders full of women!

Is that really the best you have?

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. Actually no...I have this...

information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet

That's where there evidence is compiled from....and here is my team of experts...

Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO
MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University
Jesse Gordon, content manager & technical manager
MPP Harvard University
Cathy D. Wanzo, content editor, Senate races
MPA Harvard University
Dr. Catherine A. Womack, content editor, Vice Presidential races
MA, Univ. of S.C.; PhD, MIT
Paul Hrabal, VoteMatch manager
Proprietor of GoVote.com

What you got besides an empty hand?

[MFrohike]

280. The sense to walk away

You can't respond to me, except to point to experts you haven't read. Time for me to cut my losses and stop being the bigger fool.

[VanillaRhapsody]

281. You should walk away....YOU have nothing to back yourself up...

I won't call you a fool though...just misinformed!

[JDPriestly]

335. Their work is based on past results. Their work is not relevant to a time of as much

discontent and inequity as we have today. Facts are wonderful, but the facts on which the website is based are from a time different from today, a time that is not the present.

Fast Food workers are striking and organizing across the country. Raising the minimum wage and protecting Social Security and the safety net and getting our trade deficit and finances into balance are now in the forefront. Those are the issues that matter.

The website correctly reflects what people have said in the past about issues that were decisive in the past. While the website reflects where people would be viewed if the decisive issues today were the same as they were in the past, I think that today, some issues may decide the next election that were not considered in the creation of the website. Thus the website is not completely wrong about where the candidates stood in the past in relation to the issues it considers but may not reflect where candidates stand on the issues that are pressing today.

The website does not reflect the most prevalent opinions of liberals and people outside of the D.C. area about trade, for example. Nor does it reflect how we think about the issues of getting Wall Street under control.

[JDPriestly]

337. The president is responsible for the negotiation of trade agreements.

And TPP is one horrible trade agreement. Hillary supports H1-B visas and trade. She is not the woman for this time in America.

[abelenkpe]

74. She said that?

[dreamnightwind]

271. Didn't she also call herself

the Senator from Punjab? I might have spelled the city name wrong...

[VanillaRhapsody]

276. I doubt it..

please link...

[antigop]

383. "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily."

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/06/dpunjab_funny_d.html

The reference in the headline is an allusion to an article found in the Nexis news database from the the March 17, 2006 issue of India Abroad. Writer Aziz Haniffa was reporting from a fundraiser in which "over 80 prominent Sikh professionals and entrepreneurs from the Washington metropolitan area paid $500 to $2,000 apiece" to boost Clinton's political warchest:

At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking that, 'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,' after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.

[antigop]

384. she co-founded the Senate India caucus with John Cornyn

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/usinpac-helps-launch-us-senate-india-caucus-72737722.html

With the support of the US India
Political Action Committee (USINPAC), the U.S. Senate India Caucus was
officially launched today.
Speakers at the Capitol Hill event included Caucus co-chairs, Senators
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), along with India's
ambassador to the United States, the Hon. Lalit Mansingh.

[antigop]

385. Clinton's free-trade advocacy is hitting labor where it lives

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/30/nation/na-buffalo30

To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat -- a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.

So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.
Joining Tata Consultancy's chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York's depressed upstate region.

But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.
....
Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

[dreamnightwind]

443. Thank you for these posts - eom

[antigop]

14. Hillary touts "advantages" of outsourcing of US jobs to India

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.

The "advantages" go to the executives and shareholders --- NOT the working stiffs.

And I'm still waiting for her to tell us, exactly, what laid off IT workers and engineers are supposed to train for after their jobs are outsourced to India.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. You deny that?

It's true....there ARE those that have benefitted from it....and those that haven't. That's simply the truth....

If you have EVER bought anything at Walmart lately YOU have benefitted too...

[blackspade]

321. And that is why I won't set foot in that hellish excuse for a business.

Shopping at Walmart only fuels the destruction of American jobs and further pads the pockets of the scum that run that company.

Outsourcing may be a reality, but it is not something to be celebrated or supported in any way, shape, or form.

[VanillaRhapsody]

322. Me either....but I guarantee you in one way or another you have benefitted.

It is just the truth....its not celebrating it. Just a fact. It is THAT pervasive and it will be THAT hard to end it entirely...and that is what she is pointing out.

[blackspade]

323. Please quantify that benefit.

I'm looking at depressed wages, broken unions, destroyed businesses and cities, gross income inequity, and lost pensions for starters.
Not too many benefits there.

[Whisp]

476. I'm sure the Clintons are both benefiting with their crazy priced 'speeches'...

You know, every word of theirs is so precious it's worth thousands of dollars. they might have even talked abut how to cure the common cold at those prices.

I wonder what the fee really covers - past favours or ones yet to come - or both.

[JDPriestly]

338. It is a matter of balancing the benefits against the losses.

And when you balance the benefits of international trade against the losses, you see that working Americans lose. Products are cheaper than prior to "free" trade, but they are also a lot shoddier, a lot shoddier, not well made and of cheaper materials than the old-fashioned made-in-America products. The rich have made out like bandits buying cheap from Third World economies and selling expensive in the US. But working people have watched their jobs disappear into poor countries to be done by close-to-slave laborers at wages against which working Americans cannot compete. You can't draw water from the free community well in an American city. You have to pay your water bill. Americans cannot work for what the lowest cast of Indians work for in India. The number of homeless people has increased in the US. Millions of Americans lost their homes and went into bankruptcy since 2008. Hillary cannot say anything helpful and be believed to those people. Hillary is stuck with the legacy of Bill Clinton. We all loved him when he was president, but since that time, we realize that a number of the bills he signed sold out middle America. Elizabeth Warren is speaking to the issues that are on Americans' minds today. That is why she is the candidate for 2016, not Hillary Clinton.

[antigop]

15. Hillary Clinton reaffirms support for more H-1B visas

[VanillaRhapsody]

279. we DO have a shortage of Dr's and Nurses...they use the H1B visas too...

not saying that it isn't taken advantage of...but we DO need more drs and nurses at the moment...don't you agree?

[JDPriestly]

339. American Drs. and nurses are the best educated and most carefully vetted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

396. Yes they are.....but we are still having a shortage that will continue

in the coming years UNTIL we decide it is beneficial to educate more of them...

[cascadiance]

389. And many radiologists have been outsourced because X-Rays can be sent overseas in a minute or so...

So there might be more of an emphasis there on simple outsourcing rather than -1B visa replacement of domestic radiologists. There are a lot of other variables for health care. The costs and availability geographically. Who gets seen only in emergency rooms, etc. because of our f'd up health insurance, etc.

Look at the abuse that the H-2B visa program had after Katrina. You CAN'T tell me that American workers down in Louisiana didn't need jobs after that storm, and that many were "unqualified" to do the work! These programs are basically looking to get CHEAP labor without any bargaining rights. Pure and simple. It is simply a method to get slave labor that had been illegal before to replace the American work force.

http://h2bpresswatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/un-usa-mistreating-migrant-workers-after-katrina/

Those who support these "guest worker" programs like Clinton are NOT liberal. There is no room in my book for liberals to support these programs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

397. THAT is malarkey.....we don't have enough Drs and Nurses...THAT is a fact

and it will continue for years because we do NOT educate enough of them. We get many from the Philippines etc on H1B visas...

[cascadiance]

417. And overseas like India they SUBSIDIZE their education while our kids have more college debt!

If you want to be on an even paying field, advocate forgiving our kids college debt and free education. THEN we might be able to have a more level paying field even though our cost of living were our families live is often ten times more than those living overseas that allows them to work for less than the BIGGER investment our families have to bear who live here. Those doing these guest worker programs don't want to move here. They want to move back home when they are done, which is why Bangalore is the high tech capital of the world now and no longer Silicon Valley. Those who want to move here to live will want to be paid more when they do, which is NOT what the PTB want, which is why it takes often times 10 years or so to get citizenship when the PTB want a system to discourage this. These guest worker programs ARE corrupt tools of the wealthy, and need to be done away with and real immigration processes should be streamlined instead.

[Skidmore]

16. I watched that.

She is spot on.

[antigop]

17. Hillary played a leading part in drafting the TPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[antigop]

18. Papantonio: Hillary Can’t Shed Corporate Stripes (video)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017171223

[The The]

19. This is consistent with MSNBC's strategy

Pander to the extreme-left as much as Fox panders to the extreme right. It makes message boards people recommend posts mentioning MSNBC's figures such as "Crystal Ball."

Expect a lot of mud thrown at Hillary in MSNBC during the Democratic primaries.

[Bjorn Against]

21. Extreme left? Since when was Krystal Ball extreme left?

I would like to hear your definition for what makes someone extreme left. What stances has Krystal Ball taken that you would consider to be extremist? I admit I am not super familiar with all her positions, but I have never heard her express any opinion that was outside the mainstream.

[Iggo]

24. Whenever I hear "extreme left" it usually means someone who's to the left of Bill O'Reilly.

So yeah, I'd like to hear your definition of "extreme left."

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. but there are Left fringers too....

[Iggo]

62. I'm sure there are.

Still, I'd like to hear it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. what do you think the Left fringe is?

[Iggo]

71. What does The The define it as?

All the way back to where I started...lol.

[Bjorn Against]

86. I would consider the left fringe to be Stalinists and Maoists

I have met a few fringe lefties, but there are not very many of them in the US. Krystal Ball seems to be a very mainstream moderate Democrat, I have seen nothing to suggest she is anywhere near an extremist.

[cui bono]

177. Exactly. But the centrists/corporatists like to try to label the real left as extreme so they can

continue moving the whole political spectrum to the right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

215. and some people TRY to make those on the left appear as moderates...

doesn't work on me....a true Moderate...Bill Clinton...




and Hillary Clinton




What you are doing is JUST as bad!

[cui bono]

223. I'm not doing any such thing. Do you finally have an example

of something Obama has done that is left?

That graph and site is still meaningless. They factor in quotes and speeches which mean nothing when it comes to politicians.

[VanillaRhapsody]

235. there is a whole list for you to browse at

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

I am following THAT!

pssst....its only meaningless to YOU because it DENIES your knee jerk positions...

[cui bono]

266. Why do I have to do your work for you? I need LEFT things Obama has done.

I've already told you I don't feel like perusing "the list" and see if there's anything "left" on there.

Plus, I've listed about half a dozen corporate/center/right things he's doing that need to be counter balanced. So you do the math. You're the one who hasn't put forth a reasonable argument.

[VanillaRhapsody]

249. Okay do you consider Teabaggers Fascists?

because they would most certainly consider you a Stalinist or Maoist...or Communist right?

Aren't those words they even describe Pres. Obama too?

So it's all relative...

[Bjorn Against]

255. I am talking about a real Stalinist, not a teabaggers uninformed ramblings of what a Stalinist is

It is all relative to a point and not everyone has to agree with my definition, but a Teabagger insisting Obama is a Stalinist does not make it so.

To answer your question however many teabaggers do fit the definition of fascism, not all of them, but the ones who want to merge corporate and state power are fascists by definition.

[VanillaRhapsody]

258. Right and I am talking about Real Fascists....

see my point? Do you consider them the fringe of their party? Are they the "fascists" of the Republican party?

[laundry_queen]

262. So you are saying that

the tea party's criticisms of the left have merit?

Wow. You are saying that because we (lefties) think the tea party is close to fascism (it is, poli sci 101) that it validates that the left is communist because the tea party says so. Because if we call them fascists, and it's true, it means when they call us communists, it must be true too!

[VanillaRhapsody]

264. No that was NOT what I was saying....

I am question what some think about what is fringe of either side....

[JDPriestly]

341. I don't think that Elizabeth Warren is all that to the left. I think she is quite middle-class

mainstream thought. I think that people like Hillary and Bill and Obama who hobnob with bankers and Pete Peterson and wealthy people from India, China, etc. are not in sync with mainstream thought. They don't even know how must Americans feel about a lot of the Clinton and Obama ideas. People are star-struck when they see the "leaders" of a political party. The leaders don't see what people really are or how they feel.

[Enthusiast]

25. Extreme left? Because we don't want Hillary?

You are joking, right?

[The The]

30. Preferring someone over Hillary vs. Wanting Hillary not to run at all

are two very different things. You seek to make the issue as simple as the fact that you prefer other Democrats over Hillary.
Misleading.

[Enthusiast]

53. Hillary's history tells us all we need to know.

She won't work on the behalf of working class Americans. She favors outsourcing. She even voiced her opposition to raising the FICA cap.

Yeah. We don't want her anywhere around the presidency.

[daleanime]

28. Huh?

Do you really expect that dog to hunt? MSNBC would have fire half of their staff AND replace them with Sanders, Warren, and Grayson to become the "Liberal" version of Faux.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. and those are the ONLY Liberals YOU can even think of based on a very narrow

focus...sorry....but THAT dog don't hunt.

[daleanime]

155. YOU don't know what I'm thinking....

or what a "very narrow focus" I have. But I do know how little of a chance you have to change my mind with that approach.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. I DO know what kind of "stuff" goes around on DU about it....I take it you concur...

however facts don't bear it out...




to some on DU that window is very myopic...and false...

[cui bono]

29. Extreme left? They aren't allowed anywhere near corporate media.

The extreme left has virtually no voice in the US. MSNBC is center-left at best.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

393. Exactly. The Rs put their fringe front and center and thier corporate office, FoxNoise,

defends and praises them , as do (often on Fox) many prominent Republicans, often R leaders. Any true progressive is vilified by the Democratic Party. We so very badly need a true left.

I say it's the lack of funding for our own advertising campaign to portray progressive policies and people in a positive light to counter the well-funded smear campaign by the right. Surveys show that the majority of Americans support left of center policies when the policies are presented without identification as to left of right.

[Union Scribe]

79. Lol. Subtle! nt

[Iggo]

200. Aw, give him a break. He's new.

[Beacool]

253. Same as it was in 2008.

That's why Hillary's supporters left MSNBC in droves. I still rarely watch it.

[grahamhgreen]

327. MSNBC is owned by extreme right corporations. They fired olbermann & Cenk.

[dawnie51]

20. Ms. Ball usually always has something profound to add to the conversation...

and this is profound. I don't think HC should run either. Much as I would love to see a woman president (I'm 63, so I don't have decades to wait), I agree that HC would not be the advocate for the 99 percent of us who are barely getting by. Please, no more Bushes, or Clintons, or whatever. New blood is needed.

[Enthusiast]

23. K&R! I hope this post gets hundreds of recommendations.

I am with Crystal Ball 100%.

[lostincalifornia]

31. 2016 is the year of the women, and whoever is the nominee

For the Democrats it better be a person who can be sensitive to those issues, and can win

As for Balls rant, Hillary has a following just as other potential candidates and it won't be crystal ball that will be the determining factor who runs

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. the difference is Hillary can WIN....

but some....would RISK another George Bush or God forbid a Mitt Romney administration....because they have such high standards for acceptance. Yeah....lets have a repeat shall we? See how many sing a different tune then!

[Skidmore]

52. Joy Reid just made an excellent point on Ed's show.

Hillary stands a much better chance if she gets out among the people and starts learning about what the problems are that people face. She has lived above it all for way too long.

She is not my first choice

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. and WHO else can win?

Considering the risk and HOW much the the right is going to be out in force to beat Dems....We better brace ourselves. NOW is not the time for complacency.

[Skidmore]

72. 2016 can wait a bit.

We need a responsive Congress and 2014 is infinitely more important.

[cui bono]

185. In 2006 who thought Obama would win?

That's now how you have a presidential election, pick someone established 2 years early just because you've decided she's the one who can win.

You don't know who will come out of the woodwork. Of course, you may be right in that TPTB may not allow anyone else who really has the people's interest at heart and could really get a grass roots campaign going to ever be seen or heard at all. They can kill a candidacy any time they want. So I concede your point if you mean who will corporate america allow to win since they will govern in their favor.

[VanillaRhapsody]

275. After a George W Bush? Pretty easy

He won by a landslide...not once but twice...

[cui bono]

283. Okay, pay attention before you respond. I said in 2006. That was before the primaries started.

[VanillaRhapsody]

285. Your "little directions" mean nothing to me...believe me I PAY attention...

its part of my job....

In 2006....who had the gravitas that Hillary has now? hmmmmm???? Answer...NO ONE!

In 30 yrs of reporting NO ONE has ever had this much clout this far out....sorry to burst your little world view...

by the way....the Senate Democratic ladies support her too!

[cui bono]

289. No, you weren't paying attention as evidenced by your last post.

I said in 2006 - which is before the primaries even started - who thought Obama would win and you responded with the presidential general election which was 2 years later. Guess you need to find a new job.

"In 2006....who had the gravitas that Hillary has now? hmmmmm???? "

You answer your own question. That's my point. Or are you really going to tell me that before the primaries had even been thought about much that Obama was the clear choice for nominee and pretty much had it locked up before even announcing?

[quakerboy]

512. I think you missed a key detail

"its part of my job". Pay attention, Catch the key words, repeatedly post things to try and bog down any conversation that might turn against the people paying the bills. Find a schtick and stick with it, whether it be recursive blue links, or meaningless graphs, or what have you. That way you never say anything ban worthy and you can quickly derail and sidetrack any discussion that leads where its not supposed to.

[JDPriestly]

343. In the past 30 years, no potential candidate has had to face the kind of attacks that Hillary

will face if she become president. Maybe the attacks on Kerry's war record, maybe the attacks on Dukakis' record on crime (which was totally false) were as horrible and stupid and possibly effective s what Hillary will face. Her marriage, everything in her life will be "fair game." It won't be fair but it will distract and upset the nation. She should not run.

[MADem]

85. Sort of like she did when she ran for the Senate?

She INVENTED the "listening tour" you know.

She'll follow her paradigm, I'm sure...but as everyone here who dislikes discussing HRC's candidacy points out (early and often, it would seem, in order to avoid discussing the topic), we need to get through 2014 first. There's plenty of time after we get through this cycle for HRC to get out there...and she certainly knows the dangers of peaking too soon, and she will avoid that.

She doesn't live in a bubble. She's got her ear to the ground in the meanwhile. As a board member of the Clinton Foundation, she's dealing with real, serious, life-critical issues, not breathing rarified air.

She has quite a few supporters who are backing her via the RFH PAC. Small donors, and a lot of 'em.

[Skidmore]

92. I have no doubt that she has a strategy to follow.

Hillary has never been my first choice and wasn't in the 2008 contest. Did not caucus for her then and don't plan on doing so in 2016 unless she moves further to the left.

[lostincalifornia]

273. I intentially did not remark on a specific candidate. There are a lot of demographics that go into

winning. The fact is the independent and moderate vote will most likely determine the election. Just my two cents

[Whisp]

33. K&R

way to go, Crystal. But I wouldn't have flattered Mrs. Clinton as much as you did. I wish people would actually give examples of her great intellect and strong secretaryship and senatorship.

No one touches the details. Odd.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. I know...BENGAZI! right?

[Whisp]

59. Ben Gauzie is a Muslin!

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Simple fact is....Hillary Clinton can win...and most likely WILL win...

even the Right accepts that fact...

and we HAVE to win....or risk all the ground we have recently taken.....they will turn it all around. We cannot afford to take a the risk of another George Bush in office. The Right are offended by the Black man in the White House and they WILL show up if there is any other candidate....the Inevitable HRC Presidency will make many of them stay home resigned to it. But anyone else....we better brace ourselves because they WILL turn out because they see the Black man in the White House as an utter insult to them personally.

I still remember the morning after Pres. Obama won...walking around among them in South Carolina....that was a sweet sweet sweet day for me....Everyone I knew thought I was wrong! And there is only ONE thing they hate more than having a Black man as President and THAT is Hillary Rodham Clinton....they hate hate hate her....they have had bumper stickers against her for years no apparent reason....long before her being President was ever a real thought...

[Whisp]

88. The fact that the Pugs hate her so isn't enough for me.

I don't like her coziness with the rich big farters - hers and Bill's very expensive speeches are rife for speculation of what they really did to deserve that cash. They are not forced to talk to and with the likes of Sachs and get paid for it, but they choose to.

Anyway, if Hillary doesn't run it is not the end of the world or an automatic loss to the Repuglicans by any stretch.

As so many have said before, it is still too early - waaaaaaay too early to start this talk but most of it is initiated by her supporters and surrogates setting up PACs and the likes.

Clinton fatigue is real and that is a bad move right there off the hop if they want to help her with talking like there is no other choice or other capable person. It's insulting.

[TalkingDog]

35. Signed in just to K&R this post.

Seriously.

[PeteSelman]

40. The unfortunately named pundit is dead on correct.

The Clintons are no friends of labor.

[ecstatic]

41. She ended it by saying she would be 100% behind Clinton

if she were to become the nominee. I would hope everyone here is on the same page in that respect. The alternative is unthinkable!

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. NOPE they would rather risk another George Bush....

this side never heard of playing Defense....

[NorthCarolina]

415. Except Hillary would BE another George Bush. Just another corporatist forced upon the voters. nt

[lobodons]

44. 2 SCOTUS picks not worth the risk

DEMS NEED to win in 2016!! Not worth risk of losing and letting GOP pick Ginsburg and Kennedy/Scalia replacements!! Hillary is Dems best shot at winning!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. ^^^^THIS!!!^^^

[frylock]

78. have you seen the parade of shitgoblins in the republican stable?

a potato has a good shot of winning the presidency running up against these clowns.

[Marr]

93. She's a loser.

She's already lost once. Why should anyone-- let alone a liberal-- support her? The only thing her supporters have to chant is that she's so 'electable'... but she's already proved that she isn't.

[JDPriestly]

344. When they say she is "electable," they mean that she has the money.

But that is not enough.

[Auntie Bush]

142. Hear! Hear!

Someone has a thinking head on his/her shoulders. If we stuck together we'd have a sure thing. We trash out best prospect...we could lose.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Ironic when MSNBC people affect a strong Union support.

Hypocrites on parade.

[ebbie15644]

47. Don't want her for president

I have nothing against Hillary but I want someone committed to the everyday person not to corporate america and I want someone who I can trust to pursue peace and won't be a hawk. She isn't that person.

[aquart]

55. ANY woman running would have to be willing to fight a war. ANY.

So which pro-union liberal dove has the money and clout to win this race? And may I thank you all for your concern?

[justiceischeap]

51. I liked this rant but if Clinton becomes the nominee

I'm voting for her. The alternative is unthinkable.

[The The]

58. Wait, so then you think she SHOULD run?

I'm confused.

[justiceischeap]

61. No, I don't think she should run

I would love to see a female President but I don't think Clinton is the right female at this time. However, if she's nominated, I will vote for her.

[TheMathieu]

63. If the electorate is farther to the left, the Clintons will be too.

Dems are weathervanes. Republicans are dams holding back progress.

[DURHAM D]

67. So Krystal Ball and William Kristol are on the same page. Great.

[The The]

73. Kristol Ball

lol.

[liberal_at_heart]

75. People are waking up to the economic inequality, and Hillary will not do anything to

change the economic inequality. I don't care if she runs, but if she does I will not vote for her even if she is the nominee.

[The The]

76. How do you know she won't do "anything"

regarding inequality. Explain. Was she President before?

Nothing at all?

[earthside]

77. I saw it and I agree with Ms. Ball.

For the good of the nation and the good of the Democratic Party, 2016 is not Hillary Clinton's time.

[aquart]

84. Thank you for your concern.

Since there is no other time, I assume you want to take a former First Lady who has achieved what no other First Lady in the history of this nation has done and cover her glass ceiling with steel.

SO WHO DO YOU HAVE IN MIND INSTEAD?

[earthside]

90. Like Ms. Ball, I like Warren.

But I like an outsider like Brian Schweitzer, too.

We don't need the Democratic Party to be sanctioning dynastic politics anymore -- we need a party of "the People".

And that's a good one ... "cover her glass ceiling with steel."

The wife of a former president has had more political advantages than almost any other woman in American history -- how about the 'glass ceiling' being clamped down on Sen. Klobacher or Sen. Warren or Sen. Murray because they don't the family connections of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Evergreen Emerald]

232. Schweitzer? You might want to do some research.

Schweitzer is no liberal.

[lostincalifornia]

277. Since you have expressed a strong opinion, who do you think would make a viable candidate?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

80. I would love to see a woman as the Democratic nominee

but I don't want a woman candidate just for the fact she's a woman. I'd hope she'd represent almost all of my values as a liberal. At this point I'd love to see someone more liberal than Hillary. But I know that if she becomes the Democratic nominee and gets attacked by the right, I'll end up supporting her 100% as I always do with our candidates. It's my fate to always be dissatisfied with our candidates but to always get on board with the better of the two. At least Mrs. Clinton is smart, which is something I can't say for any prospective Republican.

[H2O Man]

81. I think it is

worth considering an alternative to the Bush and Clinton families.

Recommended.

[ms liberty]

131. I agree. n/t.

[antigop]

269. Hater! nt

[stg81]

83. the right person is anyone who can beat the GOP in spite of massive GOP fraud and voter suppression

[cui bono]

123. Not if they continue GOP policy. We've had all we can take of that. n/t

[rustydog]

94. The only reason Hillary is the favorite of several people here

because she is not Hillary Jones. but Hillary CLINTON.
We don't need fucking presidential Dynasties.

[Walk away]

95. Guess who won't be getting any interviews with the next President!

Taking a page out of Rand Paul's book. Attack a Clinton and get some attention. It goes on here all of the time. Who is her alternative?

[Whisp]

99. Oh Oh, Crystal is now on The List...

I forget were enemies numbered 1 or 7?

[The The]

107. Oh! You mean the alleged "enemy list" that may or may not exist?

Yeah you're right.

Then again, one characteristic of Clinton Derangement Syndrome is that if a claim is made against the Clintons, it is a fact.
All you have to be is repeat the claim over and over in message boards.

[Sienna86]

111. My sentiments nt

[Lordquinton]

127. Not a comment on the feeling, but calling out this line:

"It is clear now that we have two economies: one for a thin slice of educated elite and one for everyone else."

No.

Wrong, very wrong, and insulting.

One for disgustingly wealthy elite, and one for everyone else. Educated has nothing to do with it. We need to stop all this anti-intellectual trends, and stop demonizing education. Yes, the poor are under-educated, but the fix needs to be educating the poor, not bashing education, as is the trend. Doing that is helping the corporates to further dismantle the coun-world.

Education is proven, time and time again to help the poor, so let's get that message out and work to bring everyone up, not once again blame the people trying to help.

[JDPriestly]

346. Good point!

While we are at it, I would like to know Hillary's views on student loan interest rates and on charter schools v. public education. I would like to know what she would do to help college grads from the US get good jobs. I know she wants to help college grads from India get good jobs in the US, but what does she plan to do for American-educated Americans?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. I will support that Democrat who I determine has the best chance of winning.

Preventing the Republicans from attaining the ultimate level of power is a moral imperative.

[kiranon]

319. Agree completely. n/t

[rock]

169. Crystal has a big "but"

Although I think she has a right to an opinion, this is not the kind of "editorial" I find appealing. Her existential crisis is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with HRC.

[hrmjustin]

171. I like the other possible candidates but I question whether they can win.

I like Hillary and believe she will be our next president.

[Auntie Bush]

184. I like her too and believe she can win. Great minds run on the same track.

[hrmjustin]

188. .

[OldRedneck]

190. Who gives a s*** what Krystal Ball says?

I live in Virginia's First Congressional District, represented by a do-nothing Republican, Rob Wittman.

I am not impressed by Krystal Ball. She's a little smarter than Sarah Palin -- but not much.

A few years ago, we had a strong candidate ready to challenge Wittman, Scott Robinson, a retired Army colonel. Krystal Ball imported a pile of out-of-state money, paraded around the district with her cute little daughter, and bought off the 1st District Democratic Committee to win the nomination. She lost to Wittman in a landslide -- something like 65 - 35. Robinson had been polling within a few % points of Wittman; had strong support among the military and veterans, who make up a major portion of the district's voters; he was working hard on retail politics -- making the rounds of civic clubs, churches, wherever voters congregated. Krystal Ball, on the other hand, schmoozed with the out-of-touch officers of the First District Democratic Committee Executive Committee, who responded by seeing to it that she was the nominee

[gwheezie]

334. I'm in the 1st district also

I remember after Krystal lost she blamed Hillary supporters for not campaigning for her.
She ran a lousy campaign.

[mfcorey1]

351. And now we know the rest of the story. Interesting.

[Auntie Bush]

196. I used to like her...but not anymore.

[Kablooie]

210. So who IS the right person? And it had better be someone who will win!

Clinton is certainly a better choice than any Republican right now so we'd better be sure that if she isn't the candidate, the person who is will be a clear front runner.

[Ruby the Liberal]

222. I agree with her.

On both counts (timing then and now)

[WillyT]

225. And Another...

[George II]

244. MSNBC is getting REALLY difficult to watch.....

....with all these sudden "political experts"! There are only about four shows that I can take anymore (Ed, Chris, Melissa, and Alex)

Krystal Ball indeed. When is Ari Melber changing his name to "Magic Wand"?

[Champion Jack]

245. I'm still in shock that anyone watches the cycle

[840high]

246. k/r

[Beacool]

247. Hillary may run or not, but I'm sure that Warren meant it when she said that she was not running.

So Krystal can go back to staring at her ball.

[fadedrose]

251. Now now, Sweetie, it was just her opinion

and you are entitled to yours, just like we all are.

Don't get discouraged. Nobody has a crystal ball. A victory will not be the cakewalk they say it will be, and you just gotta work hard and keep arguing with fools like me.

Don't take everything you read to heart. In the end it won't matter, or it shouldn't.

[Beacool]

254. I don't take this place seriously because it doesn't reflect the real world.

In RL Warren polls in the single digits. Besides, I do believe her when she has repeatedly said that she's not interested in running for president. And why should she? She just became a politician not that long ago. Although, that hasn't stopped jerks like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

[liberal_at_heart]

299. The person I vote for may not win, but at least I know I will be voting for the change I want.

I truly believe the way we have our Trickle Down economic capitalist system set up is dying. It is unsustainable the way it is currently structured, and I am actually for the first time excited about voting for something that could one day replace our broken capitalist system. It feels good to be excited about voting again. I haven't been excited to vote in a long, long, long time.

[George II]

372. Or Toure's

[treestar]

278. Just because she sat on the Walmart Board does not mean she is

against all workers. What are her positions now? How do we know what she voted for as board member? This kind of thing makes us look stupid. And who is going to run, some Union President?

[JDPriestly]

347. Why not a Union President?

[treestar]

359. Name one that is likely to ever run for POTUS

[JDPriestly]

390. At this time, there aren't any, but I would not rule out the possibility of one

running some day.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

303. I didn't click on the link. Does the person provide any credible alternatives?

If not then..BFD!!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

304. ahh. I just clicked. Elizabeth Warren. A non-credible candidate.

[JDPriestly]

348. Why do you consider Warren to be a "non-credible" candidate?

[sabrina 1]

306. Hillary disqualified herself when she voted for Bush's war, prevaricated over torture and supported

the Right Wing Mandated isurance policy which is nothing more than putting Public Funds, Medicaid, into the useless, private pockets of Big Corporations who do nothing but stick out their hands to grab 20% to 30% of Medicaid funds when the Government overhead was only 3%.

Good for her that she has come to her senses. We need NEW ideas, not the same old, corporate, war mongering, failures for everyone except the obscenely rich top 1% Corporate 'Welfare Queens' who profit from death and destruction. Enough, beyond enough, we had had enough a decade ago.

[grahamhgreen]

324. She's wrong on wars, costly trade, taxation, SS, & privatization.

[blkmusclmachine]

326. HRC 2016 Campaign Slogan: "You Don't Need No Stinkin' Choices"

[jtuck004]

333. No, because I had to disconnect the cable. The money to pay for it is with some rentier.

They took it to invest in a derivative that has no real underlying value, like student loans or something, but they can make money from the fees. And if it all bails, everyone gets hurt except them because the government will send them money.

'Cause they sure as shit didn't put it into jobs or building or other people's pockets or anything that would traditionally be called investing in their country.

They just took it, as if they worked for it. But they didn't.

Didn't hear the speech, but would have clapped if I had. I knew she was smart, but that's an attention getter.

Turns out I like having the tv portion of the cable gone, but she is 100% correct. The answer will come from someone strong enough to defeat the moneyed interests whichever party they are in. And that opens the door for a different solution than simply the Democrats trying to provide it again, or the 'pubs failing to.

I don't see that person even sitting in the bullpen, much less warming up.

Stay tuned, however. Then post it here if you get a chance. <- I kid

'Cause I prolly still won't have cable tv <- I don't kid

[nikto]

340. Crystal's got it right...

100%

[BlueMTexpat]

349. Well, I'll have to

agree to disagree with the ranter on this.

Frankly, I get tired of seeing threads related to Hillary and 2016 posted on DU right now, some perhaps intended to cause dissension and disruption. Our concentration should be on the 2014 elections instead of being argumentative about what may or may not happen in 2016. It is quite obvious that some here (most, I would venture) really like HRC and some obviously do not, even though she is without a doubt the most electable Dem candidate right now. 2016 is more than two years off. The field of potential candidates is still sorting itself out - and will continue to evolve.

The fact that HRC is polling well ahead of ANY GOP challenger right now is causing lots of angst in the GOP. Let us not do their work for them here as well. Please.

Let us please concentrate on the all-important "mid-terms" first.

[cantbeserious]

353. Agree Completely - Hillary Is Wrong For America

eom

[tomp]

354. we must come to an agreement....

....collectively, to stop responding to vanillarhapsody.

[bvar22]

405. Have you ever watched a cat trying to cover up shit on a linoleum floor?

The cat keeps working and working, scratching and scratching, clinging to the hope that if she just works hard enough, she can make that shit go away.
The cat will back up, look over the scene, see that shit still exposed on the linoleum floor,
and then go back to work even harder trying to cover up that shit.

It is kinda funny when a cat does that.
It is just sad when a Human Being behaves that way.
The only difference between a Human Being and a cat
is that the cat will eventually realize that she can't bury shit on a linoleum floor,
and give up trying.

My mother told me that I should avert my eyes when someone is making an embarrassing spectacle of themselves in public. I would get slapped if she caught me laughing.
I'm glad mom isn't here now.



...but I agree.
Non-Response is the best way to deal with such an obvious disruptor.

Can anyone be bludgeoned & ninsulted into supporting Hillary?
That approach does more harm than good.

[dreamnightwind]

450. That's one of the funniest posts in recent memory

Thanks, and well said.

[BrainDrain]

355. K&R'ed 2 Thumbs up!

There seems to be those among us who are able to see the truth under the many layers of BS we are handed by "those in the know".

No, a thousand times, NO! HRC is NOT the right choice. Period.

[Buns_of_Fire]

357. After reading this thread (yes, I read all of it), I have come to one conclusion:

DU's gonna need a lot of ShamWow!s to soak up the blood spilled when primary season REALLY starts.

[MynameisBlarney]

360. I agree.

But if it's a "choice" between her and some GOP moron, I'll vote for her.

[mfcorey1]

364. Those items in your avatar are disgusting and propaganda to the max!!

[MynameisBlarney]

366. The what now?

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Could you elaborate a bit more please?

[mfcorey1]

367. When you click on the graphic for your post, a list comes up with some of the most vile lies about

the President. Have you clicked on your own graphic?

[HappyMe]

368. It leads to the poster's journal.

The first paragraph states that they are lies found on FB, and wants help in debunking.

[mfcorey1]

370. Not blaming him, but pointing out the items listed are disgusting.

[HappyMe]

371. Yes, they are.

[MynameisBlarney]

373. Ooooooh! Thanks! I had no idea.

That was my very first post on this site.
Had no idea it was there when someone clicked on their icon.

I copied and pasted that from a former friends facebook post. I wanted pointers on counter those talking points.

[HappyMe]

361. Krystal Ball is entitled to her opinion.

As is everyone else.

She makes some excellent points. I doubt that I will vote for Clinton in the primary.

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

363. Heard it. Loved it.

[TheMathieu]

369. I love how people become political experts after losing very winnable districts. nt

[Beacool]

374. I didn't make the connection until now because her name didn't mean anything to me.

But isn't this the same woman who lost the election after either a video or pics appeared that showed her playing around with a dildo that her husband was jokingly using as a nose?

[Whisp]

477. you actually went there? ROFLMAO!!!

lost an election! dildo! o the travesties!!!

keep scratching that linoleum, Bea

[Beacool]

478. Go scratch the dog, I think it has an itch.

[alp227]

375. Now will Ball live up to her name?

She is spot on here. I will NOT support Hillary in 2016. Now will Crystal Ball determine the future?

[Estevan]

377. I totally agree with her

While I respect her and would vote for her if she did get the nomination I think it's best to see the primary field. There're plenty of great candidates for the Democrats. Besides, the last time everyone touted her as "the inevitable nominee" we all know how that went. She probably does not even want to run.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

379. If her parents really named her that...

then I'm willing to cut her some slack as a victim of child abuse.

[DFW]

448. Yes, her parents really named her that

Ball is their real family name, and her dad is a scientist whose expertise is in the structure of crystals. Her husband's name is complicated (he is of Indian origin, and a great guy, by the way) and I don't blame her at all for retaining her own name.

[Stellar]

381. heehe! I thought I was the only one that felt like Cyrstal!!

Thanks you Crystal!

[broiles]

382. K&R

[antigop]

388. wow! 170 recs. 170 "haters". sarcasm. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

394. I supported Kucinich.

[VanillaRhapsody]

400. the site explains their methodology...you are welcome to go there and read it yourself.

ontheissues.com.

[vrp]

407. I agree

But if not Hillary, who?

[libdem4life]

438. Don't have time to read the comments, but this is powerful. Wow. Shifted my begruding support

for "the Inevitable". If Warren could get a number of media people this passionate, clear, and reasoned...maybe? I haven't seen her campaign...only in charge, behind a desk or lectern. She did win an election in Mass, so that's a good start.

But can she withstand the lying, cheating, GOPoopheads assailing her for 2 years? Does her family want to be scrutinized? Does she have something in her background that said Poopheads could apply a witches brew of scandal? How well does she think on her feet...responding to MSM blather? She's a great authority figure, to be sure, but has to run the gauntlet of ridiculousness and muck called Primaries and National Elections.

But I'd be a gleeful supporter of her candidacy and would work hard for her...given history and fate lend a hand.

[aquart]

479. And we laugh at the tea party for destroying their best chances.

Elizabeth Warren is a spectacular senator and gadfly. But her political credentials are almost nonexistent.

I just adore the way DU trashes a woman who has achieved what NO OTHER WOMAN LET ALONE FIRST LADY has been able to achieve in the history of this nation: Hillary Clinton has amassed a resume equal and superior to that of the most qualified male candidates. Which DU ignores with a condescending sneer.

As for whether the woman who kept her temper while her husband's infidelity was made public and her underwear drawers in the White House were searched....yeah, kids, I think the lady can handle anything they throw.

[quakerboy]

514. Perhaps her credentials are roughly akin to those of

Barack Obama, Circa 2005 or so?

And I love how you start out by blaming democrats for eating their own, and then in the very next sentence try to diminish and dismiss a successful female Democratic Senator.

[aquart]

518. Elizabeth Warren is a political novice. Plain fact.

I worship the ground she walks on but she is not runnable.

[quakerboy]

525. You say novice

I say plain speaker. You say "not runnable", I say "biracial lawyer/community organizer with a name that rhymes with Americas public enemy number one just got elected US president twice"

"Not runnable" is pure conjecture. I can assert the same of Hillary. I can say the same of literally any candidate you can name. Lets look to facts, at least. Warren won when she ran. In comparison Hillary can only claim 2 out of three as her record. Those are the only hard and fast fact present in this scenario.

I think its more than fair to argue that Obama proved that perception of "electability" is a matter of conjecture, not fact, and whether Hillary, Warren, or anyone else is runnable (nice new word for electability, unless you care to redefine it?) is more a matter for history books after an election than statements of hard fact before an election that is still multiple years away, with a midterm in between now and then.

[libdem4life]

516. How does "begrudging support" "trash" Hillary? I'm Left Liberal and I don't condescendingly sneer

either. I have respect for all. I think a lot of Hillary's support is the lack of a credible opponent. I am starting to consider that if enough MSM reports like the OP began to become "credible" and "inevitable" was used a bit less, there might be an option.

Without reining in the crooked Wall Street, we might not have any middle class in 8 years. Hillary will not do that...and that's not trashing or sneering. That's political fact.

PS: I'm not DU ... I'm one person who can think for myself.

[quakerboy]

513. "Can she withstand"

its a good question. Based on what Ive seen, I would tend to think yes. She seems to answer questions straight, and without the double speak that makes so many political figures look so shady and untrustworthy. She has an approach that I think the MSM and the republicans would have a very hard time counteracting.

Thats just my two cents, but that's how it looks to me.

[DFW]

451. In case anyone is interested, Krystal did not make the decision do this segment lightly

She was, in fact nervous about it, but felt that this was her time to say what she believed, and felt obligated to use it for just that.

I feel less strongly about the subject than Krystal does, but applaud her for speaking her mind on a subject that is on everyone's mind, but few in public (outside of Fox Noise) dare to speak coherently about.

[G_j]

483. good for her

I'm impressed.

[DFW]

508. She has more depth than some would ascribe to her

She has a hectic time of it, trying to raise two small children and doing the show. She also has her looks, which are pretty spectacular even when the studio's people aren't doing their magic, and it sometimes obscures the brains behind them. I have only known her for a couple of years, and didn't know her when she ran for Congress, which she now looks back on as an amateurish disaster to learn from. But she is smart, caring, and willing to learn. When the makeup comes off, the apron goes on, and the pasta and tomato sauce fly (her kids are still very young), dinner talk lets you get to know the real person, and my wife and I like that real person plenty.

[HappyMe]

511. I admire her guts.

It would have been way easier to just keep it to herself. Good for her. This is the kind of woman people should want as elected officials and commentators - not afraid to put it out there.

At least she tried to run for Congress. How many of us could say that every career move we made was top shelf great.

[DFW]

524. I took the liberty of passing your comment on to her

Just FYI. She was most appreciative. I don't know what kind of stuff come in to her via the station, but I'm sure it's so massive that she doesn't look at it all (or if she even has the time to look at any of it).

[G_j]

520. well, what she said was well thought out

and encouraging. She gets it. Thanks for your insights.

[DFW]

521. Glad to share them

It has been my fortune (good or bad, depending on one's opinion of the individual) to know a few people who are also public figures. I try very hard to never cross the line of personal intrusion when sharing thoughts they might express in private or details they might have revealed away from the microphones and cameras.

[libdem4life]

517. Count me in the "Amen Corner". Maybe she just broke through the Inevitable Ceiling, just a bit.n/t

[questionseverything]

486. so before 2008 i watched the iowa caucuses

I had never seen one (we have primaries in Illinois) so I was curious

Obama got over 350 votes, Edwards was 2nd with like 50 votes and Hillary's people were embarrassed because she barely beat dennis k

she can not win and krystal is correct, she is not who we need

[neverforget]

497. Bookmarking this thread for the 2016 primaries

[solarhydrocan]

506. .

[Ellipsis]

507. I mean really "Crystal Ball"...

verses Walter Cronkite do I really have to go there.

Yikes!

[Faux pas]

519. My thoughts

EXACTLY!!!!!!! Crystal's speaking the truth and I love it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

526. "Thin slice of educated elite," what a bullshit phrase.

Tom Perkins, who advocates that the rich get more votes than everyone else, is not the "Educated elite." Perkins is a plutocrat, part of the wealthy elite. The Koch brothers are not part of the educated elite. They are the filthy rich class. Corporate Executives, members of Corporate Boards of directors, investors, and owners are not part of the "Educated elite." They are the Randian Class.

Yes, yes, Corporations have too much power, but it is not derived from education, it is derived from their massive wealth, and the use of their wealth to control the political process for their benefit.

The Tea Party, as a group, attack educated intellectuals. The ridiculous notion that there is an economy for a "Thin slice of educated elite" should be left to their bankrupt ideology.