A Thought About Hillary Clinton

[H2O Man]

Hillary Clinton will be “officially” entering the Democratic Party’s primary contest for the nomination to be our candidate for President in 2016. In recent times, this has been the source of some interesting discussions on DU:GD; however, more frequently, the OP/threads about Ms. Clinton’s candidacy have been acrimonious, more emotional that insightful. I haven’t made any decisions regarding who I might support in the primaries, and thus am more interested in the intelligent conversations, than the more common type.

My younger son stopped by tonight, to watch boxing with me. We also talked about politics, including Hillary Clinton. In my clearly subjective opinion, all of my children have a good understanding of politics. They have each been active in social-political events in our state.

This son probably takes the most interest among his siblings. A brief “biography” : he’s in his 20s; has been employed in various social work positions, including currently for Catholic Charities; and, as a solid amateur heavyweight boxer, is my #1 “body guard” when I run my big mouth at tense public government meetings. (grin) He has also proven an effective campaign strategist in our four-county region.

I like that he thinks for himself. For example, I asked him what he thought about Hillary Clinton’s running in 2016? Now, you may agree with him, or disagree with him. But I think that he made some points that -- at least in my opinion -- are of the general quality that DU:GD is capable of producing on a daily basis.

He said that the amount of money that is being reported as about what Ms. Clinton’s campaign will cost presents a unique opportunity for both her and the Democratic Party. He is aware of the massive sums that the republican party will be spending, both on the presidential and other races (congressional, state, and local). He noted that the Koch brothers and their ilk will be attempting to channel their millions into a coordinated, saturation campaign of lies. Hillary Clinton, he noted, has the opportunity to change the process; by using a method similar to judo, he said, she could use the current “corporations are people” mega-money madness, to bring a higher level of awareness to the public.

Could you imagine, my son asked me, if rather than enriching advertising agencies et al, she went to various communities -- cities and towns -- and used a large portion of her campaign funds to invest in them? If she said, “The American people have donated money to me, because they believe that I can institute change. It starts now: I am re-investing this much-needed money in your community. And that is exactly the approach that I will take as your President.”

He said some funds should go to charities, which would allow her to address specific social problems -- and solutions. It’s true that some problems can’t be “solved,” they must be dealt with on an on-going manner. (He was quoting his father.) Other funds could go to specific community needs, again allowing her to highlight problems, and solutions. He said that large segments of the country have accepted the problems that the bankrupt Bush-Cheney policies inflicted on our country. A great leader must change the way that people think -- about themselves, their value, and their relationship to community and country -- before those people can be expected to behave differently. And no single person -- not even the President of the United States -- can “solve” our nation’s problems: they require an on-going effort upon all of our parts.

I thought it was an interesting perspective.

[joshcryer]

1. This sounds a lot like the 50 state strategy.

Going to local communities, enlisting lots and lots of volunteers, and spending money on people as opposed to advertisements.

[H2O Man]

30. Both when my son was

talking, and while I was typing up the OP, I kept thinking "50 state strategy." He didn't say those words, but I think it was what he was saying.

I remember that declaring his 50 state strategy came back to haunt Richard Nixon in 1960. But, of course, the primary season is a heck of a lot longer these days, making it possible to accomplish.

[2naSalit]

2. Seems that

you have doe well in seeing that you children are well informed, that's really cool. I learned politics at an early age but not in a positive way... but now, as an aging adult I do have a degree in political science.

Your son's thoughts are very well thought out and game-changing in a good way, and it just may be that what he imagines is possibly what HRC is actually planning. There has been mention of her intention to visit and speak in small venues with small groups... those events do bring money to those places. I hope that is what will take place too, it would be the best thing for her to do in her campaign and out her money in the right places.

To your son (and you for sharing this),

[delrem]

3. At an estimated $+2billion on each side,

I expect an outlandish campaign for '16.

But hey, if it takes $+2billion to win, then we all have to jump down the rabbit hole. Don't we?

[Rex]

4. Why does it cost billions of dollars to run for POTUS?

Great post! Sounds like your son is a wonderful person. Sounds like he took an interest in many things to have a diverse life, which is the way to go in my book.

However...why does it cost billions of dollar to run for POTUS? Is this Wall Street phenomena? Political hyperinflation?

Why?

[delrem]

5. Because that's how a certain % achieve a satisfactory outcome.

That's why.

I don't think Elizabeth Warren would require anywhere near that kind of campaign chest to win.
Nowhere near it.

[NBachers]

7. The Koches, Sheldon Adelson, the republican money machine will spend that much to spew lies, venom,

Last edited Sun Apr 12, 2015, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)

sabotage, and destruction. They will slash and burn their way across this nation.

To mount a campaign to fight this evil, an equal or greater amount of money is needed.

This is the way it's done these days.

[merrily]

27. I don't think that has ever been proven. Don't know if it can be proven.

Sure, you need a very respectable amount of money to run for President. Will you lose if you don't spend as much or more as your opponent, though?

McCain ran under McCain Feingold. Obama had almost a billion to his campaign, not counting soft money. I don't think that McCain lost because he was outspent, though.

In 2008, I was so pro-Obama, it was not even funny. Still, when I read that he had had a replica of Air Force One built to use for campaign travel, I was very disappointed about that.

[billhicks76]

6. If Lots Of DUers Can't Stand Her...

Then how can she possibly win a general election?

[pnwmom]

8. DUers aren't at all representative of the broader Democratic party, much less

of the swing voters who determine the winners of the general election.

Most non-DUers think that she is, if anything, TOO liberal. DUers think she isn't liberal enough. So our reaction to her doesn't tell us much about the general election.

[Enthusiast]

10. The notion that Hillary is too liberal comes from the misinformation merchants.

The notion is absurd.

[pnwmom]

11. The notion she isn't liberal comes from the same people

who said there was no significant difference between Bush and Gore.

[Enthusiast]

13. You have asked them all?

You are privy to a lot of information rest of us just don't have access to.

Of course Hillary is liberal on some things and not on others. Just like the rest of us.

I voted for Al Gore. I have never stopped thinking and talking about how the election was stolen.

[billhicks76]

17. She's Liberal On Safe Issues

And ones that pale in consequence compared to the ones that control our destiny.

[Enthusiast]

19. I didn't say that because I am trying to avoid cross words.

I guess that is going to be impossible before long.

Yes. She's liberal on safe issues. You nailed it. On issues that control our destiny like regulating Wall Street, perpetual war, trade and progressive taxation, I fear she is more of the same. The same that is killing us.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. You nailed it

TPP, Wall Street, wars, fracking, ad nauseum, are issues with serious long-term consequences that Hillary seems to be on the wrong side of.

[JimDandy]

56. That's it exactly.

[billhicks76]

57. Age Old Deflective Tactic

All about hoodwinking and obfuscation.

[billhicks76]

58. Toss A Bone Some Might Go And Fetch It

[billhicks76]

16. DUers Are Not That Liberal Or Progressive As A Whole

This site is plenty mainstream within the Democratic wing. At least in my experience. This is not Antiwar.com, Rawstory.com, Commondreams.com etc. I understand the electorate is more Conservative or at least the ones who vote are but my point is that if enough people on her own team dislike her how could she possibly appeal to enough people to win? She cannot.

[JI7]

12. kucinich being popular on DU didn't help him much

and a lot of duers can't stand obama either.

[billhicks76]

18. People Loved Obama

I think only well after he was elected first did people get angry about flip flops and broken promises. And just because some liked Kucinich doesn't mean everyone cheered him on. There was little support beyond a small vocal group but even that was too much for the moderates to handle.

[Enthusiast]

21. When President Obama was elected in 2008 with an overwhelming majority

the electorate thought he was very liberal. Right or wrong the electorate thought of Obama as liberal and they were enthusiastic to vote for him.

The people wanted a liberal. They still want a liberal, an authentic liberal, liberal on all the issues.

These voters voted for a liberal, at least what they perceived to be a liberal. If Democrats want to win we had better be running a liberal candidate.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[KittyWampus]

25. you've lost all credibility when you say "the electorate thought of Obama as liberal"

That is completely untrue.

It's been countered so many times on DU with the actual facts.

YOU may have though of Obama as liberal or wished he was.

FOX News definitely portrayed him as such.

[Enthusiast]

48. I've lost all credibility? LMAO! THE ELECTORATE THOUGHT OF OBAMA AS A LIBERAL.

The entire media had Obama pegged as a liberal. He was considered so liberal as to be called a socialist.

That was the story. Most voters perceived him as a liberal.

Making shit up doesn't constitute facts. Repent, KittyWampus! Embrace the truth! Come in from the dark side!

[JI7]

44. obama was not loved by many on du

He was and still us loved by most democrats .

But the same is true for Hillary .

[merrily]

28. The meme is that DU's left is not representative of US Democrats as a whole.

[Major Hogwash]

9. An interesting perspective indeed!

A little naïve, but what the hell, we all were when we were younger!

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I'm no expert on campaign finance law

But I can think of several reasons why that idea --"using campaign funds to imvest in communities" -- might be seriously illegal.

Well-intentioned, to be sure, but quite likely against the law.

[mercuryblues]

15. my first thought

It can and will be construed by republicons as vote buying.

Using Dean's 50 state strategy combined with Obama's tech team will do wonders. Plus if she has a mic clipped to her assume it is on.

[Jim Lane]

24. I was an expert many years ago

This question never came up, and even of the questions that did come up that I knew the answers to, I've forgotten much.

With those caveats from a no-longer-an-expert: I don't think it would be illegal.

I suspect, however, that it would be ineffective. Let one candidate invest campaign funds in good causes while the other candidate is spending half as much on TV ads, and my money's on the advertising candidate to win.

[merrily]

29. There is no doubt a way to do achieve the goal, even if not with "campaign" funds per se.

What I thought should have been illegal, but apparently was not:

Promising a tax refund if you are elected. That's the functional equivalent of using the public treasury to buy votes for yourself.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Functional equivalent, but then so would be promising to increase social security benefits, etc.

I think if the question is the direct use of campaign funds, though, as others noted it could run afoul of "buying votes" laws.

[merrily]

49. How about promising to increase defense spending?

Or, maybe just promising to strengthen defense, which is code for the same thing?

I see a difference between promising to increase an existing federal program and promising every taxpayer they'll be getting a check in the mail from the US Treasury if you're elected..

But, a question: when was the last time a candidate ran on increasing Social Security?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026485072#post2

Also, I think we may both be forest/trees mode relative to the thought of the Op's son. The amount of money spent on campaigns is obscene and could be better used for things like making sure bridges don't collapse during rush hour.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Ideologically, I agree with you.

Realistically, there's an obvious difference on the ground, legally, between promising to "bring jobs to the district" or other legislative goodies- however one wants to look at them, and directly using campaign funds per se for that stuff.

The first happens all the time, the second I think can't be done.

[merrily]

51. I'm confused. Did you read the subject line of my Reply 29 to you?

Especially the second half?

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Yeah, I get it.

[merrily]

54. My only point was, we do not disagree on use of campaign funds.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Gotcha.

Sorry, long day cutting brush on the ranch, here. Brain is a bit frazzled.

[MBS]

20. fresh and thoughtful ideas

Looks like you raised your son well.
Thanks for the ideas, and for your son!

[Zorra]

22. A great leader will change the way that people think.

[KittyWampus]

23. It's a great idea. The weakness is such a strategy would require the media to report

what she was doing.

Yes, community groups are important to getting the word out. And the uniqueness would be a factor.

BUT, there is a significant percentage of voters who swing elections who this information probably would not reach.

On the other hand, such a strategy might win over some advocates who would be very, very effective.

I do like the idea.

[malaise]

26. Your son is a chip

off the old block.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. 'Unique' means : being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.

Didn't Obama reject the idea of running on pubic financing so he could raise more money than anyone in the history of American politics? Yes, yes he did.
How is Hillary's big budget a 'unique' problem when every election is a big budget production and when Obama's was the largest so far ever?

[H2O Man]

33. Interesting.

In the OP, I wrote that my son spoke of a "unique opportunity." Your response asks what " 'unique' problem" he was speaking of.

Two very different mindsets there: where one sees "opportunity," the other views the same dynamics in the context of a "problem."

[Bluenorthwest]

38. And how is it unique and not the same opportunity presented to Obama or any other candidate?

And yes Pat, I do see the vast sums of money being used as a problem. Money in politics is a problem. Every problem is also a solution waiting to happen, and the word for 'problem' and 'blessing' is the same in some languages but that's not what I meant and you know it.
I wished to do discuss how it is 'unique' to her rather than systemic. How is the vast money a unique opportunity to her and not in fact the same opportunity presented to Obama in 2007? He rejected the idea of taking only public election financing and that was fine, so why is she being said to be the only politician ever to have raised lots of money for a campaign? She's just not. Words mean things. The application of a different standard to one person than is applied to another is something I abhor. That which is good for the gander is good for the goose or it's bad for both.
So it is a wonderful opportunity!!! Not a problem at all!!!! So now, tell me how it's unique to Hillary.

[H2O Man]

39. I think it is self-evident, but

will try to explain ....keeping in mind that my attempt cannot be taken as anything more than my impression, since it was my son who said the words that you chose to be upset by this morning.

We are entering the 2016 primary season. Hence, what has happened before might be viewed as significant -- at least to people such as my son -- in that no candidate has yet taken the approach that he suggests Hillary Clinton could take. No one that I am aware of has suggested that Ms. Clinton alone has access to large sums of money for a presidential campaign. But as my son noted, she could take a very different -- hence, unique -- approach to using that resource.

That any potential republican candidate for 2016 will have enormous amounts of money to spend is obviously beyond question. I will speculate that even you will agree that it is unlikely that any republican presidential candidate would seriously consider investing such resources in anything other than a highly-polished campaign of lies. Indeed, it is more likely that cats will bark, and dogs meow, than a republican candidate for national office undertake such an approach.

Among potential Democratic Party candidates in the primaries, I suppose it is possible to argue that others will have similar access to financial resources as Ms. Clinton in this contest. But that would only prove that person likes to argue, and places being disagreeable as a greater goal than dealing with the harsh, cold realities of modern political contests. By any and all objective measures, Ms. Clinton has the ability to raise -- by far -- more money than any other potential Democratic Party candidate. That puts her in a unique position.

Hillary Clinton is also in a unique position, in terms of the national corporate media reporting on virtually every move she makes. This, of course, has both positive and negative potentials. But the reality is that she is a high-profile person. This status provides her the opportunity to be reported upon, regardless of what she does. In a "usual" campaign, that unfortunately allows the media to present her almost entirely in the context that they have for decades.

Thus, we have the expected package -- both what her campaign hopes to present, and what the corporations that own the major media sources want to sell. Again, this is, as you note, the same as with any politician. This includes presenting their views on the three primary issues: social, economic, and foreign policy. As a general rule, both campaigns and the media present these issues in a routine package.

Hillary Clinton has the ability -- including the financial resources -- to change how these matters are presented, and understood, by the American people. Despite the corporate media. And that, at least in my opinion, is unique. But I appreciate that you see it differently.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. I don't think you are even close to having a clue as to what I am talking about.

I don't even support her for the nomination. It would be great if she, when faced with the exact same opportunity every past major contender has had, chose to do it all differently. If she did it differently, that would in fact be unique. Because when Obama had the opportunity to do it any which way, he just did it the same old way.

[H2O Man]

47. Oh, I do.

I just do not view it the same way that you do. But that's okay: different people can interpret things very differently. And, of course, in this instance, there's a third person's view -- though that person isn't an active participant in this discussion.

Per Ms. Clinton: I haven't even begun to consider if I might or might not support her in the primary season. Thus, if she is the Democratic Party's nominee, that's something I haven't even begun to think about. Living in NYS, I recognize that my individual vote, in a primary or general election, doesn't carry much of any weight per presidential contests.

[mmonk]

32. Any real change has to come from the ground up and a candidate

that can encourage that. In other words, us who are aware and active in trying to bring about change and a champion carrying our banner.

[H2O Man]

34. Well said.

We have witnessed the exact opposite when we consider republican candidates/politicians such as a George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. I'm thinking of Bush's instruction to the nation to "go shopping."

[mmonk]

35. Yes, they do it opposite. They manufacture consent and followers.

[H2O Man]

36. They inject social

novocaine: "just sit back, and close your eyes; you won't feel a thing."

[mmonk]

37. Yep. Confortably numb.

Until the Novocain stops working.

[Octafish]

40. From a PR standpoint, the offer is a Win.

It would show a concern for the problems of ALL Americans -- from coast to coast. Such a move would make her stand out as a caring human being, aware that people are more important than property.

From a practicality standpoint, it's a non-starter. The problems the nation and its people and communities face can only be addressed effectively with the sums available to the Federal government and its printing presses at the Federal Reserve banks.

Going from history, such as when in the Senate she voted for the rights of the banks over the bankrupt, and in her time as a private citizen, such as when helping Jackson Stephens avoid major penalty for corrupting US banking, politics, etc with BCCI, she has shown a pattern for approaching problems from the perspectives of the rich and powerful.

The talk helps though. It makes us feel like we're not gonna get the screw.

[Trillo]

41. I presume that judo-like technique would require some heavy duty

public gratefulness in which local news in turn reports. A weakness I see has to do with how the Internet and its search engines are structured, more of a national and global interest, rather than local.

Perhaps someone should write some legislation requiring Google, the former "don't be evil" corporation, to return local results instead of national and larger? Google begins to do that, suggesting a few local news outlets, in our area, the major Tribune companies, but lots of grassroots stories by small town papers are invisible, they don't appear on the first page of results, if at all.

It is up to the user to manually check their local news outlets, which sort of invalidates the idea of a using a search index to find important local stories, including those based around gratitude. If you don't know which sites to manually check, you are sort of out of luck.

It's possible that by not having a cell phone, I'm missing a major set of tools or apps commonly used today, but this laptop or desktop basically still misses most local stories of interest.

[panader0]

43. "rather than enriching advertising agencies et al, she went to various communities--cities and towns

-- and used a large potion of her campaign funds to invest in them."
This is a great idea--the press would be much bigger than the advertising. People would be very impressed.
This could work for almost any candidate.
When does your son turn pro? All the best Pat.

[H2O Man]

63. Good question.

It's been very difficult to even get sparring for my boy. We wanted to enter him in last month's Golden Gloves, for example. For the first time, instead of having each of the four districts have a GG tournament, followed by a state tournament (to determine which open class fighters would go on to the nationals), there was just one, state-wide tournament.

My boy is a heavyweight -- 205 to 250 lbs. In the entire state, there wasn't one other entry, in either novice or open class. None. He considered going "super heavyweight," but I am opposed to that. Though he might win in our state, I can't see putting him in the nationals against guys who are 6 inches taller, and 75 pounds heavier.

We have three of us training him. One fellow was an undefeated pro heavyweight, and sparring partner to a heavyweight champion in the 1990s. So were trying to connect with others in the boxing community, to get my boy about 6 more amateur bouts around Detroit. Then, we'll go pro.

[sabrina 1]

46. Your son is thinking along similar lines to what I have been thinking, although I think he has come

up with a more creative and better way to use the money.

What I was thinking in order to begin the process of making the public aware of how poisonous Corporate funding is to the electoral process, ALL DEMOCRATS should announce that will be not be taking any funding from Special Interests who hope to influence their decisions while in office.

Hillary and all other Presidential candidates have a huge opportunity to draw attention to corruption of our government by the huge amounts of money that BUY candidates, and here they could fill in a challenge to the Repubs also, Kruz et al, by using a chart to show who is funding them, then asking 'Who are they going to represent, can YOU buy your way into a personal meeting with Kruz, or is it more likely that THIS is the guy whose phone calls he will answer (Koch photo, Wall St etc)


Then in every debate with a Republican they could honestly ask 'how much money were you paid to say what you just about 'More War, Cuts to SS etc.

But I know it's just a dream.

One Democrat HAS publicly stated she won't take corporate money. I would love to hear all of them say that.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Brilliant.

She'd win, and I'd likely be her biggest supporter.

[H2O Man]

60. Thanks.

I believe that my son is correct. That if Ms. Clinton were to approach it in the manner he outlined, it would unite the Democratic Party, and totally devastate the republican party.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. BTW, I've always thought that boxers are the smartest athletes

I boxed for a little while as a kid, probably would have stuck with it if we hadn't moved from NYC to Long Island although I wasn't particularly good. It demands much more in the way of strategy and tactics than most people realize. And punches are getting thrown at you while you're trying to work it all out!

[H2O Man]

64. I agree.

I recognize that I'm not entirely objective when it comes to boxing and boxers. And there are certainly a fair share of stupid people in the sport. But there are a surprising number of guys who are highly intelligent inside the ring, and philosophers outside of it.

Many years ago, my mother -- who hated that her three sons boxed -- watched a psychologist on the Merv Griffin Show. He said that among athletes, he found boxers the most fascinating. He explained that most were actually gentle, non-violent men outside the ring. Life had hurt them, he said, and boxing was, in his opinion, their way of telling society, "Do Not Touch Me."

As I've noted on DU many times, I became close friends with Rubin "Hurricane" Carter while I was a young teenager. By the time I was 13, I had been featured in a big Boxing Illustrated magazine spread, by a top European writer. That author was sure that I'd be a world champion in time. I was becoming familiar with Carter's case, so I wrote to him, offering to get him out of prison, and suggesting that he then train and manage me. It made perfect 13-year old sense at the time!

Rubin was as intelligent a human being as I've ever met. We continued our close friendship up until his death.