An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

[babylonsister]

From here, the full article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-williamson/an-open-letter-to-hillary_b_5606437.html

[bigwillq]

1. K and R

Hillary will never get my vote.

[JDPriestly]

42. Nor mine. Why should we vote for a Hillary who claims she has seen Jesus and

changed her life when we have Elizabeth Warren who saw Jesus and changed her life a long time ago?

[WillyT]

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

[Dawgs]

3. how 'bout just, please don't run. n/t

[bigwillq]

4. She can run.

We don't have to vote for her (in the DEM primary). I will not be voting for her if she decides to run.

[Dawgs]

5. ok. i would rather she doesn't run. n/t

[Cha]

6. Wow! Marianne Williamson nails it! mahalo babylonsistah!

[BrotherIvan]

9. If you agree with this, do you agree the current administration should also not do these things?

Why do we hold Mrs. Clinton to a higher standard?

[Scuba]

16. +1

[Cha]

22. Yes. And, don't worry.. no one is holding Hillary to a higher standard. It's just common

sense.

[FoxNewsSucks]

29. I agree with it,

and I agree that the current administration should not also do those things.

That's why I want a real liberal, not just another Corp-O-Dem. I don't want to have to vote for another Corp-O-Dem just to keep a republicon out.

[Dustlawyer]

50. Unless we get the Corpratists out of Congress and off the Benches it wouldn't change much!

Help organize protests to GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS! Spread the word to every organization that has had their issues shot down in favor of corporations and the 1%! If we fight together and attack the ROOT PROBLEM, campaign donations and Lobbyists we can make our own change, otherwise we will have to live in a failing America, bitching all the way down.

September 13th - Nov 4th and beyond lets get out and protest in front of the TV and Radio stations. I propose we demand Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections and make the culpable stations air the campaign ads for FREE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE FOR USING OUR AIRWAVES!

At a minimum we change the conversation and raise awareness to the problem. Besides, making fun of the politicians raising the most money makes their strength turn into a liability (old Republican trick I learned)! Lol.

LETS DO THIS!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. Such bullshit! They way you guys have treated this president with all your double standards? PLEASE!

Spare me the fucking drama!

[BrotherIvan]

38. I was actually asking if there will be a double standard for the next Democratic candidate

Because I am confused by this thread.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. There always is. Democrats are never ever satisfied with their candidates, so we get angry and stay

home because we didn't get everything we wanted. Or, the guy/gal we supported isn't sufficiently liberal enough.

I have my issues with Obama AND the Clintons. But they are electable candidates. As much as I love Elizabeth Warren and the more liberal contingent of the Democratic Party, those politicians are not electable. We have to work to change the minds of the electorate.

Larry O'Donnell put it plainly tonight in his commentary on liberalism and how Republicans/conservatives have successfully made "liberal" a bad word: he said that until we are able to change the political culture and redefine what liberal is--turning it into something good and not nefarious--we will continue down this path.

The double standards will always be placed on Democratic politicians, especially presidents, because Americans expect Democrats to govern; they expect Republicans to play politics. That is a major double standard that we have seen played out to the 10th power with this particular president. No matter what he does it's never good enough and everyone on all sides is angry at him. Meanwhile, he has to govern, forced to work with racist assholes in the legislature who want nothing but to destroy him regardless of who dies (by not expanding Medicaid in their respective states, for instance).

I just hate when smart Democrats commit the same mistake--play into double standards against our own. We should know better.

[BrotherIvan]

55. If you believe that Democrats must bow to corporate interests to be elected

Then you don't agree with the OP. That's all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. See, you're part of the problem. I did not say that and I DO NOT believe that.

Jesus Christ!!

[BrotherIvan]

57. It is the only logical conclusion from your posts

I don't actually want to make an enemy of you, but I am trying to understand what people truly support. I don't actually agree with the OP because it holds the potential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to a higher standard than most hold the current administration. And please note, I said administration, not Obama specifically. I think the Democratic Party and those currently in the highest offices of Democratic leadership do not hold to these principles.

I do not think this is a war between single candidates, but a problem of goals and ideals within the party. I think that Obama himself, who ran as centerish-liberal, campaigning on health care reform and buttressing the middle class, has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that liberals CAN and DO win. People voted for change. They voted for liberal ideas.

[Hoppy]

68. The question ain't whether the candidate is electable.

The question is what will the person do after being elected.

I didn't expect much from Obama and I wasn't disappointed. I don't expect much from Hillary either. That's why I won't vote for her in a primary.

[JDPriestly]

44. I do believe that the current administration should not do these things.

Hillary and Bill, however, are worse than Obama. Many of Obama's big mistakes, and I am thinking of some of his appointments like Larry Summers and Geithner, were made thanks to the advice and assistance of the Clintons.

[jwirr]

7. And that says it. Balls in your court now Hillary.

[lovemydog]

35. Alerting for testicles reference. (j/k)

[jwirr]

62. Have you ever heard of basketball? It is played on a court!!!

[awoke_in_2003]

64. "(j/k)" means "just kidding". nt

[jwirr]

65. Sorry. I did not know that - too old and am just learning this new way of communicating. Thanks

to you I will have learned another symbol.

[awoke_in_2003]

67. no problem, glad to help.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Just who would you back who has been in politics who has not taken contributions from corporations?

Next, who is going to step up and make the contributions necessary for any candidate to run for president? It will take very deep pockets. As an example in Elizabeth Warren's senator run she spent $42 million and guess where some of those contributions came? It may sound good for a candidate not to accept contributions from lobbyists and corporations but to multiply $42 million times 50 states, it is a tall hill to climb. Think you will find a candidate which will suit all the ideas on all of the issues, another tall hill. Lots of people are voting for GOP on a single but they vote against their own best interest.

[wyldwolf]

12. A more relevant question for this thread is who the hell is Marianne Williamson?

...none of that is enough to get my vote, or the vote of a lot of people I know...

So ... what? ... many others will.

Marianne whoever lives in a bubble. She's speaking based on her experience among her small social circle (yes, it IS small in the electoral scheme of things.)

There is no candidate who hasn't or won't be tainted by corporate money. And I'm glad Hillary is pro-science.





Anti-GMO'ers are the climate change deniers of the left.

[Thinkingabout]

18. By the information she has on her site she has not decided how she will run as Independent and has

not decided to caucus with the Democrats so I am not sure if she should be quoted very much on DU.

http://www.marianneforcongress.com/campaign_faqs

[wyldwolf]

20. One of the many things Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Hillary Clinton have in common...

... support for GMOs to end world hunger.

Screw Marianne Whoever.

The comments in the Huffpo piece are are great:

How exactly do you expect Hilary to win unless she matches or surpasses the massive corporate funding that will flow to her opponent? She must take the corporate money or she will lose. The only fix to that is this: Represent.US. Until we fix the money in politics problem, Democrats must cozy up to big money - thats how the game is played now.

Then there IS no difference in who wins....dem or repub....its all the same!

Untrue. Had McCain or Romney won, here is what would be different: 1. WAR. Gee where do I start? We'd have troops in Syria, lots more than we do now in Afganistan - Iraq war would not have ended and we'd be in a proxy war with Russia. 2. Millions of Americans would not have health insurance. I have 20 more on my list but obviously there are very significant difference that impact people. If you want to see Medicare, Medicaid and Social security dismantled and business given complete "freedom" to dump toxins into our air and water, you can have that if Rand Paul wins. Careful what you wish for.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Reality is running for a national office takes a lot of money, corporations donate to candidates on

both sides, they are trying to protect their interest. I am surprised so many does not understand these contributions happens, hopefully they will begin to understand this is what happens. For those who say they will not vote for a candidate who takes corporate money then they will not be voting.

[JDPriestly]

45. Marianne Williamson is great. She is a spiritual leader on the left.

Have you heard of the Book of Miracles? She has prepared study on it.

She brings a wonderful presence to what she does. She is OK.

If she did not win the primary (I didn't follow that race), it is because her opponent was even better than she is. But she is fine. Not a Republican, not by any means.

Williamson cannot run in November because our state election rules do not allow her to run at all.

Sixteen candidates competed in the primary for the open seat left by the retirement of Rep. Henry Waxman (D). Of those 16, Elan Carr (R) and Ted Lieu (D) advanced past the primary. Trailing in third and fourth were Wendy Greuel (D) and Marianne Williamson (I).[1] Despite the media attention surrounding Williamson's congressional run and the potential for it to cause the district to be competitive if she and a Democrat won the primary, she did not advance to the general election. Therefore, the district is likely to be won by the Democratic candidate, Ted Lieu, in November.

http://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_33rd_Congressional_District_elections,_2014

Only the top two winners in the primary can run in a November contest in California.

Party affiliation does not matter.

[Thinkingabout]

47. She does declare as a democrat nor does she know if she will caucus with the Democrats which

leaves the TP or GOP.

[JDPriestly]

58. She can't run in November. She will not be in Congres.

California election law was changed so that the top two candidates in the primary, regardless of party affiliation are the only candidates to appear on the Novembe ballot. She can't run.

[Thinkingabout]

59. The point is she has said her position is she did not know how she would run and id she ran as an

Independent and did not know if she would caucus as a Democrat, in other words she just may vote with the Republican, we are trying to elect Democrats. I know people who are Republican but I don't agree with their position on many issues.

[Cha]

24. Yes, Marianne Williamson has an opinion about Hillary.. Fucking GMO and their poisonous

Roundup. Fuck them right the fuck out of the Hawaiian Islands.



Suck on that Poison Pushers.

"Large biotech companies like Syngenta, Monsanto, Pioneer, Dow and BASF have long been experimenting with GMO crops and seeds in Hawaii. They have farms on Oahu, Kauai and Molokai, but they've never operated on Hawaii's Big Island -- and now they never will.

On Tuesday, the Hawaii County Council passed a bill, 6-3, that forbids biotech companies from operating on the Big Island and prohibits all new genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. (The papaya industry, which has more than 200 farms on the Big Island, is exempt from the bill.)

The bill includes fines of $1,000 a day for violators.

Mayor Billy Kenoi hasn’t indicated his stance on the bill, but he has 10 days to veto it. The county council could override a veto with a vote from six members.

Passage of Bill 113 comes just days after the Hawaiian island of Kauai pushed forward legislation that severely increases regulations of biotech companies."

More..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/big-island-bans-gmo_n_4305729.html

Corp poisons are regulated on Kaua'i

[wyldwolf]

27. I stand with pro science Democrats like Jimmy Carter and George McGovern in their support for GMOs

GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left

I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters. Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

GMO opponents are the left’s version of global warming deniers

Scientific denialism (also known as pseudoskepticism) is the culture of denying an established scientific theory, law or fact despite overwhelming evidence, and usually for motives of convenience. Sometimes those motives are to create political gain for their supporters.

Two of the most annoying denier viewpoints are the darlings of the right wing: evolution denialism and global warming denialism. Although denial of anthropogenic global warming and evolution tend to be the domain of the right wing, the left-wing have their own particular brands of science denialism–GMO’s.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300524/-GMO-opponents-are-the-left-s-version-of-global-warming-deniers

[Cha]

31. Yeah, you stand with them.. I stand with my friends in the Hawaiian Islands who don't want anything

the fuck to do with their Poisons and their dead patented seeds ruining our environment.

[wyldwolf]

32. Show us any anecdotal or empirical evidence GMOs are bad.

How about research that was done using the scientific method? How about someone who has died after consuming GM foods over the last 40 years.

Oh, you'll drop a few 'F' bombs, dodge, divert and spin, but you know the evidence to support your position doesn't exist so you won't even try to prove it.

You DO believe in climate change and evolution, right? Just checking because you never know with science deniers.

[babylonsister]

25. From wiki, and I am familiar with her via sister:

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

[Skidmore]

10. Woman speaks the truth.

We want a safe and fair society for our children and grandchildren. We do not need more of the same.

[blackapron]

11. who then?

everybody is talking about her ties to this and that. come on, voters threw away there vote on r. naber and we got bush (how did that work out?) I know you are not one of the people who have forgot what the bush/cheney admin. did to this country{and it still hasn't recovered}. I do believe you are younger than I am, so I suggest you look up why H. Humphrey lost (hint: he did not speak out against Pres. Johnson when he was V.P.) and so we ended up with Nixon.

[bigwillq]

14. Other choices will emerge, imo

that will be better than Hillary.
If Hillary runs, and enough people vote for her, and she wins, then good luck to her.
But we can do better than Hillary in the primary, imo.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Hillary has a lot of baggage in that unstoppable train and a lot of CYA to do.

K&R

[joshcryer]

15. Clinton is hyping the inequality rhetoric.

She's going to run the gamut that "everyone should be able to be rich like me." It'll sell well to idealized American people who believe they are middle class when they are actually in poverty.

[bigtree]

17. another attack on Clinton - this one pretending that there's something Clinton could do

. . . to earn her support.

Weaning support away from this prominent Democrat without doing anything more than giving a sort of backhand nod to her 'longing' for 'Elizabeth or Bernie'.

Where is this person leading? To the depths of her own ridiculous despair?

This is a silly (or manipulative) person who can't name one person she would support. Claiming she 'wants Hillary to change' is transparently disingenuous. That's a nice way of saying it. More likely, she's simply no friend of Democrats; content with dividing our party away from our most prominent Democrat and sowing seeds of despair and woe.

There isn't one Democrat she can put all of her prominent support behind (other than herself)? Maybe she'd be better off speaking to some other party.

[babylonsister]

19. Not an attack, one person's opinion. Since I haven't

made up my mind, primarily because I don't know who's running, I thought this was fair game.

Someone's opinion is as valid as anyone elses at this point.

And edit to add this on the author of the quote:

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

[wyldwolf]

21. it actually is an attack, and the same old same old

Corporate this and GMO that and blah blah blah.

It's a veiled threat. It's saying 'I'm famous and a lot of people love me and unless you change none of those people will support you.'

You know that old saying don't hate the player, hate the game?

How exactly does Marianne expect a Democrat to win unless he/she matches or surpasses the massive corporate funding that will flow to her opponent? There is no one on the Right wagging their finger at Rubio or Paul or Perry. She must take the corporate money or she will lose. The only fix to that is this legislation to remove money from politics. She should focus her effort there. Until then, I want the Dem candidate to match or surpass the Republican in money - if it's from corporations so be it.

[JDPriestly]

46. The question is whether a candidate who relies on so much corporate funding is worth electing.

The corporate funding is suffocating our system. It must go. We just cannot have it.

I'm getting to the point at which I will not vote for any candidate who accepts a certain percentage of campaign funding from corporations or anonymous sources.

If Elizabeth Warren doesn't run, Bernie Sanders probably will. If the Democratic Party wants to win it has to deal with the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of belonging to a party that cares more about the wealthy who own and run the corporations than about the ordinary, working people of America.

[bigtree]

23. it's an attack, a cute one, but still an attack

. . . it's the same type of demoralizing despair that most of the anti-Hillary posters spread around here on this board. It's ultimately self-defeating, and transparently self-serving.

I'm proud to be a Democrat. I have little use for someone campaigning outside of our party, and I suspect that she doesn't have our best interest at the heart of her complaints of our most prominent potential candidate. Hell, she's even pushing off on our Democratic president.

"I admit that in 2008 I went with Obama, feeling at the time that he was carrying the real spirit of things, yada, yada, yada. Yeah, well. Anyway."

She is not a Democrat. That may well suit some folks here, but she doesn't have the interests of our party at heart and that's not an effort that I can get behind, given the state of the opposition.

I'd support Bernie (or O'Malley, or others) as a Democratic candidate and I will not be voting for Hillary in my primary or encouraging anyone else to do so. I really believe we'll accomplish a lot more by advocating for the candidate we believe in, rather than spending the majority of our time and effort tearing down dedicated Democrats like Hillary who may well be our only hope against the republican opposition in the end.

That's how much I care about the issues I advocate for. I'm not giving the opposition an inch against ANY of our Democrats. This person? Not so much.

[Hekate]

49. Point, bigtree

I'd support Bernie (or O'Malley, or others) as a Democratic candidate and I will not be voting for Hillary in my primary or encouraging anyone else to do so. I really believe we'll accomplish a lot more by advocating for the candidate we believe in, rather than spending the majority of our time and effort tearing down dedicated Democrats like Hillary who may well be our only hope against the republican opposition in the end.

I have no idea yet who I'll support in the primaries, especially since California doesn't hold its primary election until a lot of people have already lost or otherwise dropped out of the race. In 2008 I sent money to Edwards (who knew he'd turn out to be such a slimeball), but he was long gone by June. I agonized between Hillary and Obama, but then she dropped away too. That's how Obama got my primary vote, and I'm glad of it.

Historically for me, my favorite candidates don't make it as far as being nominated. I may argue for them and donate to them, but I'm absolutely with you on this point: I will not waste my time tearing down other Democrats, as it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Cha]

26. Thanks.. this would be good in the OP.. since some have no clue who Marianne Williamson is..

from your link, babsis..

"She is the founder of Project Angel Food, a meals-on-wheels program that serves homebound people with AIDS in the Los Angeles area, and the co-founder of The Peace Alliance, a grass roots campaign supporting legislation to establish a United States Department of Peace. She serves on the Board of Directors of the RESULTS organization, which works to end poverty in the United States and around the world. Williamson is also the force behind Sister Giant, a series of seminars and teaching sessions that provides women with the information and tools needed to be political candidates. Through these seminars,[2] she encourages women to run for office and align their politics with their spiritual values."

[Cha]

33. And, so what if it is an attack? no one has a right to "attack" Hillary with how she feels about

what Hillary has been promoting? Yes, Marianne Williamson has every right.

[bigtree]

34. hi, Cha

. . . did you agree with this comment of Marianne Williamson's in her diatribe against Hillary?

"I admit that in 2008 I went with Obama, feeling at the time that he was carrying the real spirit of things, yada, yada, yada. Yeah, well. Anyway.

That was then and this is now."

[Cha]

41. I agree that she has a right to speak out.. regardless of her "yada yada yada" attitude toward

President Obama and what he's accomplished. I also wish Hillary would not support GMOs and chemical companies.

We're fighting for our environmental lives on the Islands here and it is one of my personal health issues that I take very seriously. I don't care how much "science" is quoted or who "stands" with GMOs. I'm on the side of those who ban them in Europe, Mexico, and the Big Island of Hawai'i. We passed a bill to get them to be held accountable on Kaua'i to reveal how much and what kind of poisons they're spraying and to have a buffer zone for schools and hospitals but they're suing us to strike down the bill we passed.



"Large biotech companies like Syngenta, Monsanto, Pioneer, Dow and BASF have long been experimenting with GMO crops and seeds in Hawaii. They have farms on Oahu, Kauai and Molokai, but they've never operated on Hawaii's Big Island -- and now they never will.

On Tuesday, the Hawaii County Council passed a bill, 6-3, that forbids biotech companies from operating on the Big Island and prohibits all new genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. (The papaya industry, which has more than 200 farms on the Big Island, is exempt from the bill.)

The bill includes fines of $1,000 a day for violators.

Mayor Billy Kenoi hasn’t indicated his stance on the bill, but he has 10 days to veto it. The county council could override a veto with a vote from six members.

Passage of Bill 113 comes just days after the Hawaiian island of Kauai pushed forward legislation that severely increases regulations of biotech companies."

More..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/big-island-bans-gmo_n_4305729.html

Corp poisons are regulated on Kaua'i and they're Howling!


And, P.S. to edit: If Marianne has any influence on Hillary in this area.. I welcome it.

[bigtree]

48. sure, Cha, she can speak out all she wants

. . . one line criticizing Hillary for whatever support she's expressed for GMO's? Go for it.

She didn't even bother to refer to him as 'President'. I don't have any need for this person advocating against our Democrats from outside of the party; especially one who can't even give our Democratic president the respect he deserves. How accurate does that make the rest of the things she's complaining about? I don't even have to wonder. I know the answer.

[Cha]

51. I know how you feel, bigtree.. after I read the whole thing

I almost wrote that she shouldn't be trying to divide Dems if she really wants Hillary. But, then I decided I didn't want to distract from what I feel is the GMO crisis on our Island.

I was actually surprised by her words.. I agree with her about you know what but for a "spiritual" person who does good work for others.. she sure hasn't done her homework on President Obama.

Thank you for pointing out what else she had to say..

[bigtree]

53. GMO's threaten our food supply

. . . and are likely dangerous; we don't know what we're subjecting ourselves to. My concern is with the elimination of native species of plants.

As you well know (you need no lecture from me) introducing genetically modified corn, which is one of the most widespread genetically modified crops, along with soy, could decimate in just a decade all of our native corn species, replacing them with a uniform variety that demands intensive spraying of pesticides to cope with its new environment.

Genetically modified crops also prevent farmers from saving their seeds, which forces them to buy new bags of seeds every year from biotech companies . . . even more.

These seeds and plants were developed to be either one crop seeds, or, genetically engineered species that spread quickly, overtaking naturally occurring species and severely reducing if not eradicating biodiversity.

Potato famine? What happens when the one remaining genetically engineered crop fails and none are left to fill the void? What happens when other crops are infected and diluted with these modified genes? It's a typically human folly.

Thank you for defending your state's environment.

[Cha]

54. Thank you for this!!!! "My concern is with the elimination of native species of plants." That's

one more reason to get them off our Island. And, this "Genetically modified crops also prevent farmers from saving their seeds, which forces them to buy new bags of seeds every year from biotech companies . . . even more."

You're welcome.. mahalo to you for being aware of what these gmo seeds can do to our precious heirloom seeds.

[aikoaiko]

28. That is the weirdest nonendorsement endorsement I've ever read.

"You know what to do from Day 1."

Marianne Williamson is a failed politician. I'm not sure she knows what it takes to a diverse group.

[840high]

30. k/r

[cantbeserious]

40. Could Not Agree More

eom

[delrem]

43. It's way too late.

HRC learned to be who she is over a long life. She isn't going to turn around on a dime just because it's '16 and someone wants her to be a different person than she is. Her "packagers" must be working overtime, now. I suppose there're a lot of people, likely even a majority, that can't see past the momentary packaging of a politician. Those people will be in their glory, yes, but it won't be for anything real.

[G_j]

52. well done! nt

[Blue_Adept]

60. So... people will vote for her if she changes completely who she is?

Sounds like a planned "political" marriage that will end in a failure. And familiar with how many feel about Obama now as well.

[Enthusiast]

61. Kicked and recommended!

[2banon]

63. I'm not into this woman, but K&R for important points.. n/t

[Thespian2]

66. If HRC is nominated

I will not vote. I would never vote for a corporate shill. Unfortunately, like others, I was fooled by O. But I will never vote for republicans.

[fadedrose]

69. R, R, R

This is the problem.....she's not hearing us because too much time is spent on speeches for people who don't want her to be the candidate we want.

She's more than qualified...that's why corporations want her to run.... no matter who wins, Republican or Hillary, they win...