When Hillary supporters attack Obama for not being liberal enough

[DonCoquixote]

Now, let me cut the standard discussion killers off at the root. I have criticized Obama for not being liberal enough. From this TPP to drone strikes, he has shown that he has drunk a bit too much of the centrist Kool Aid. Unlike many, I think the ones feeding it to him are people like the Geitners and Emmanuels who would have fit into a Clinton admin, including Hillary "we came we saw he died" Clinton herself. However, there is a greater point this op will be about. How do people who supported Clinton, who proudly wear her banners and are polishing her crown for the coronation, claim to be to the left of Obama?

Look, from the very moment in the first presidential debate, where Bill mocked Jerry Brown and said "you are from California, so chill out" the Clintons have made a point of mocking liberals and getting them out of power. Now, I know the thought killer that people are summoning, "Hillary is not her husband!" Well, never mind the fact that if she wanted to espouse polcies that were to the left of her Husband, not only would she be heard, she would be cheered. She may not have had the same "bully pulpit" people slam Obama for not using, but if she were to let's say, come out against the TPP, does anyone doubt she would NOT get the Press? Does anyone doubt that even Liz and Bernie and maybe even Ralph Nader and Michael Moore would heap praise upon her?

She will not, nor will she apaolgize for her crack about "we came, we saw, he died" even though that war in Libya helped to fuel Isis recruitments. It's the same reason she did not get on the mic and condemn Bibi Netanyahu for using the Koch Brothers congress to undermine peace talks. It's the same reason she supports H1b-Visas, despite the fact they are not only a means to exploit India's poor, but also helped gut a generation of American workers. It's the same reason she was tight lipped even as Cops were killing black men and women as if they were deer during hunting season.

She, is, NOT a leftist. She may be to the LEFT of TED CRUZ OR SCOTT WALKER, and while that will enable me to use her to keep those two out of office, she does not deserve the crown of liberal, and she sure as hell is not more liberal than Obama. The one, and only thing she might have done is "evolve" quicker on LGBT rights, even though people forget who helped craft "don't ask don't tell" in the FIRST PLACE. When it comes to NAFTA, GLass Steagall, The Telecommuncations act, has she ever said she would roll back any of the polcies her husband did that have been shown to undermine liberalism? She could, what's Bill going to do, divorce her? Go ahead Bill, if your wife did make a clear break from your MISTAKES, she would become Joan of Arc as soon as she did the Orpah Interview. She does not, even though she would be praised, because she belives in that move from the left to the CENTER.

No, she is not a GOP member, but please do not talk about how she is to Obama's left, or that she would have done anything more leftist than Obama did. She has had a decade to do just that, and has not. So when I see someone with a Hillary sticker join on the "Obama made me mad coz I am a liberal" bandwagon, I will see that Hillary t shirt, and Know that they are either being dishonest to the realliberals, or worse, and more likely, that they are being dishonest to themselves.

[JaneyVee]

1. She was 9th most liberal senator, Obama was 8th.

[DonCoquixote]

5. So because a metric says they are liberal

means that they can support things that are clearly NOT liberal. Please. To quote an old saw "there are lies, damned lies, than statisitcs."

Let me see her walk back policies like the repeal of Glass-Stegall, then we might have something concrete. At this point, she wont even apolgize for luaghing at Qadaffi's demise, despite the fact Isis uses it to recruit people.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The thing is about your OP, it leaves out actual salient points about her own actions and uses

instead lots of her husband's actions. If you want to cite Bill's stuff at her, that's fine, but I think it is less than honest in a week such as this one to simply exclude facts like her vote against Fast Track, her vote against CAFTA, or for that matter her votes for other trade agreements. The actual facts of her voting record on trade are not included in this OP and those facts are just left out of almost all the discussions that purport to be about Hillary's views on trade agreements. She did not repeal Glass-Stegall. But she did vote no on CAFTA and we have other Democrats saying they will run who voted yes on CAFTA. Her record on trade agreements is mixed, some of our other potential candidates are full on free trade advocates. She's not.
I can see why you'd not like things such as voting records and metrics. Facts are bothersome.

[DonCoquixote]

19. you want facts?

"I can see why you'd not like things such as voting records and metrics. Facts are bothersome. "

OK, here are some:

Go ahead, try to paint any of these actions as liberal. Facts ARE bothersome, especially when they come stright from her own lips. You do not see Bill in any of these clips do you?

But then again, I guess you do not belive in quotes, none of which she has bothered to walk back. It's not like she cannot, it is not that she would not be cheered. She could get a lot more of the left if she walked back any of these clips, especially the h1-b visa, but she does not. As for why, well, we have every right to ask.

As far as metrics go, someone who saw Fox newsw cook up all sorts of metrics on everything from war to support of LGBT rights should be aware that they are no substiture for the actual record of one's actions. Fortunately, Hillary is not camera shy, and prvodes us plenty of those.

[okaawhatever]

21. Wanting to get rid of Assad I view as a liberal position. Assad is a mass murderer who has

stolen, lied, pillaged and killed his own people. If the people of Syria are to have a future, Assad needs to go. The entire western world wants to get rid of Assad. His supporters are Iran and Russia. That should tell you everything you need to know.

I hope you're not going to use that tired excuse that all liberals are anti-war or it's none of our business. That is exactly what the isolationists said during WWII while Hitler was running roughshod over Europe an exterminating an entire group of people.

[DonCoquixote]

22. if gettind rid of assad is liberal

thwn how comes we are not bombing the Saudis, you know, the onmes that fund isis, behead women, and gave of 13 out of the 15 9-11 hijackers? Nice try.

[JaneyVee]

26. Yes, getting rid of human rights violators is very liberal

[sabrina 1]

32. That would make Bush and Cheney Liberal also!

Has the meaning of the word 'Liberal' changed?

[Adrahil]

20. So anyone who supports something you don't consider liberal is not a liberal....

Ill be sure to run everything by YOU! So i can be sure to get a liberal stamp of approval.

I guess some folks think its just better to feel their way through the issues.

[DonCoquixote]

24. being against war used to be considered liberal

as much oppsing measures meant to make it easy to fire american workers.

I am not going to go ahead and quote FDRS "bill of rights" you can look it up yourself, or hit up BVAR22, some far more leftist than me, but someone I respect a lot. That is not feeling, it is looking back at what the democrats have stood for and going "when did we decide to be the pro war, wall street party?" Why are we rolling back specific stuff FDR fought for?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. My criticism is of your tactic of leaving out facts that don't fit your narrative.

And did you discuss the facts I offered? No. You evaded what I spoke of, and went on ahead talking about what you want to talk about, which was in fact the criticism I offered to your OP.
The lack of respect shown to me, as a person who suggested points of discussion which you just pretended were not there is not surprising to me at all. You say 'what facts?' The facts I wrote about, her varied record on trade which I'd call a mixed bag, but which you want very much to paint as a full tilt no holds barred free trade support record. That's simply not her record. Fast Track is the issue of the fucking week for me as a Union and LGBT activist, so the fact that Hillary voted against Fast Tack seems at least worth a fucking mention. Why not mention it? It's the truth. Those votes do not comprise a defense of her, a person could easily still consider her to be too favorable to free trade without simply rewriting the facts and history.
I don't care for the tactic. I can make my arguments with full facts on the table. You can't. So you change the subject. Whatever.

[DonCoquixote]

33. what facts

Facts are not personal. OK, she voted against CAFTA, but the issue most are concerned with, and the one that Obama is justly being conbdemned for is the TPP. Yes, Fast Track is a current weekly issue, but if she is goign to run for a logn term job, can't she say how she would vote, or even what sort of sfatey net should be laid even if we do pass it? A former secrtetary of state should have something to say about that.

but as far as respect of YOU, I do realize who my enemies are, and they are the GOP and the Libertarians that are too damned stupiud to see they are GOP Puppets, or just do not care. I evolved on issues, you might evolve on others, but both of us know that the GOP won't. That is why, even though I have concerns about Hillary in regards to war and economic issues, I will still vote for the woman come November. We have to respect each other in order to work together.

That does not mean we will agree on everything, nor should it, but we can agree to not stab each other in the back, which is the original reason I did this OP. When I saw some people who supported Hillary use Obamas bashing for momentum (something I doubt Hillary herself would approve of personally) I spoke because the last thign we need is reopen 2008. If it was not for Mitt's own stupidity, we could have lost that one, despite the fact that it should have been a 50 state landslide based on Mitt's track record alone.

Full facts on table: Hillary voted down fast rack and cafta, fine. That does not undo her war record, not the H1bvisa support. IMHO, the war record will affect all other issue, including the ones that might affect you personally, as wars sap energy and waste resoruces that everyone of us on the left need to get changes done for everybody. That opinion can be backed by facts, just count the money spent in Syria alone, and the fact that we are agaisnt Syria forces us into bed with the Saudis, who give lots of money to the same GOP candidates that are heavy anti LGBT.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. Should some votes be more heavily weighted than others? I think so...

When you vote for the WRONG war...

You vote for BushCo and squash Liberal voices like Byrd and Sanders.

You vote to waste American lives and treasure.

You vote to bring American soldiers home maimed and suffering from severe mental illness.

You vote to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

You vote to do the dirty work for Bush's and Cheney's cronies.

You vote to enrich their cronies.

On this single vote, Clinton is a "Bushie" voting to enrich their cronies at the expense of American lives and treasure. But the proxy you're citing doesn't unpack single votes. Secondly, is being misapplied simply indicating these members are left of center. "Most Liberal"...

FAIL

[okaawhatever]

35. You're not taking into account what percentage of her constituents supported the war nor her

opposition once the truth began to come out:

I couldn't find a break out for just New York residents, but this is from May 2003:


A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]


Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, was notable for his opposition to the war, in particular because his early lead in the polls was largely attributed to his anti-war position.[41]Dennis Kucinich, another candidate for the Democratic nomination, favored replacement of the U.S. occupation force with one sponsored by the UN, as did Ralph Nader's independent presidential candidacy.


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

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

42. Occasionally, politicians have to make judgement calls regardless of their constituents wishes.

First and foremost on war votes.

It was a calculation and she miscalculated. It cost her in 2008. Did her war vote win her the 2006 election? Was that her ultimate goal: re-election?

In retrospect, she admitted it was wrong. She knew it was wrong all along.

I liken it to Obama's initial position on gay marriage. It was a calculation. Did Obama really "evolve" on gay marriage...no. Obama made a political calculation and ultimately came out in favor of gay marriage. But he was always in favor of gay marriage, he didn't evolve--that's MSM nonsense.

Hillary was probably against the war all along. But she put re-election over judgment on the most important vote of her 8 year Senate career.

My claim is that her single vote on a WRONG war is weighted very heavily vis-a-vis other votes. Unpacking it reveals it's not just one wrong vote, it's multiple wrong votes.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. I keep hearing this. How was the instrument used to decide this validated?

What were the independent criteria used in the validation study?

What was the operational definition of "liberal?"

Was the data set factor-analyzed? Is "liberalism" a multifactorial concept, or did a single vector account for most of the variance?


Inquiring minds (aka people who have some fucking idea of what measurement theory is all about) would like to know.

Do you have a copy of the study? I'd like to see it.

[DonCoquixote]

36. thank you :)

if they ever send you that data, let us know what ye found , or if it even held water

[marmar]

37. Which, in our Senate, doesn't mean much.

In the House, 9th most liberal might actually be significant.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. She may be to the right of Ted Cruz and Scott walker?

I think you need to edit that sentence.

But, overall I agree.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Where is your link she is to the right of Cruz and Walker

[PowerToThePeople]

16. was origninally in OP

since edited after brought to his attention.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. That's the problem with correcting people around here.

You end up looking like an idiot after they make the correction. Happened to me more than once.

[MADem]

3. I am a Hillary supporter who voted for Obama. I've no intention of attacking him for anything.

I've no intention of shitting on her to please a tiny faction here on DU, either.

I've also no intention of throwing any Democrat under the bus for any reason.


The difference between the parties is STARK. The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

All of this "How left/progressive/populist" this one or that one is? Not a "real liberal?" Please. Don't ingest that crap. It's all a game of Divide and Conquer, ginned up in the bowels of Koch-Rove Hell, to benefit the Cruz-Rubio-Jeb!!!-Christie-Fiorina etc. Krazy Klown Kar.

I'm not buying. So keep your crowns.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Exactly, good post. I don't understand why the Hillary and Obama supporter are

continuously blasted, no, I am not a far left Democrat but I should not be subject to the continuous talking points of I am not left enough. I don't like too far left.

[gobears10]

4. HRC was to the left of Obama on healthcare

In the 2008 Democratic Primary, Barack Obama ran to Hillary's right on healthcare. Paul Krugman documented this thoroughly. Obama's plan as a candidate did not include an individual mandate, meaning his plan would not truly achieve universal health care. Hillary's, in contrast, had an individual mandate that would establish an insurance pool large enough to enable insurance companies from covering people with pre-existing conditions. Hillary's initial plan also contained a strong public option. The Affordable Care Act resembles Hillary's plan much more than it does Obama's 2008 plan.

Hillary is also more leftist than Obama on education reform, charter schools, standardized testing, etc. Her economic plan during the beginning of the financial crisis was more liberal than Obama's, with her focusing on a moratorium on housing foreclosures and implementing a strong stimulus.

Hillary was on Obama's right on capital gains taxes (Hillary didn't want to increase them that much, Obama wanted to lift them up to 28%). Hillary also didn't want to raise the cap on social security, while Obama did.

So it's a mixed bag, and it really depends on the issue.

So far, Hillary has expressed criticism about the TPP, saying she won't support it unless it has strong currency manipulation provisions.

I'm not a Hillary fan myself. I'm personally backing either O'Malley or Sanders. But I don't view Hillary as a Third-Way corporatist the same way I view her husband.

[DonCoquixote]

6. the same individual mandate

That got him pilloried as being to the right?

That many supposed leftists (many of whom wound up being tobstoned once they were exposed as sock puppets) said he was vi;lating people's rights for?

The same policy he adopted from Hillary,much to the disappointment of the left?

Sorry, that balloon does not fly. Again, it proves my point, what kept Obama from beign great was his willingness to adopt Clinton policies (which the individual mandate, as opposed to a public option, was.)

OH PS, if Hillary supporters think that just because we will vote against the GOP in 2016 means that Hillary is in the clear, think again. Some of you were ready in your sniper nests long before the inuguration, commenting on everything from Michelle's hair to Obama's accent. Rest assured, some of us who know Hillary will make damned sure that every step to the right she take has a cost, up to and unbcluding the 2020 primary challenger, which frankly, I think we should start working on right now. Hey, if you are going to speed up the election cycle, we might as well get some pacs of our own.

[stillwaiting]

18. The mandate for private insurance was the right-wing dream.

It's one very big reason why so many left-wing people chose Obama over Hillary during the primaries (including myself).

Private insurance mandate = Heritage Foundation wish list (and all the right-wing corporate interests said "Amen&quot .

Of course, we were also voting for Obama in the primaries based on his stated desire to implement a public option.

That's something that Hillary did not support, and it clearly is much more left-wing than consolidating the power of the insurance companies over our health-care delivery system.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Hillary is a hard core liberal, she is actually to the left of Obama on the issues chart.

Having said this, I do not push the small amount of difference in Obama and Hillary. I am amazed at you post claiming Hillary is not a leftist, I would like to see more proof of how you have concluded this.

On your don't ask don't tell was put into place for the military to halt dumping those perceived as being LGBT in the military in which many was thrown out of the military for this reason. Today we are in an evolution period and even we are seeing RW evolving on this issue also.

I have an idea when Obama arrived at the WH he was thinking very liberal on the issues and then got information which changed his mind on how the US needed to run. Don't blame him for this, sometimes we have to learn to go with the flow of the water.

[marmar]

38. "Hillary is a hard core liberal"

In what alternate universe?

[Thinkingabout]

39. I have no idea, I reside on earth.

[2banon]

40. "Hillary is a hard core liberal" ROFL!

[hobbit709]

8. I laugh my ass off.

[DonCoquixote]

9. care to elaborate?

what made ye laugh?

[hobbit709]

11. Two slighly right centrists accusing each other of being not liberal enough

[DonCoquixote]

14. OK

I will gladly join you in that laugh Slightly right might be perfect for Clinton and Obama.

[JaneyVee]

27. Who is accusing?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I stand with the 44th president and soon to be our 45th one

[99Forever]

23. Neither one is a liberal.

BOTH are neoliberals.

Which one is more so, matters not to me.

[2banon]

41. agreed. I'd describe them as Hard Core NEO-LIBERALS - very close cousin to Neo Conservatives. .

[Bluenorthwest]

25. An advocate speaks of an issue to assist the issue and the persons associated with that issue

When a person invokes an issue not to advance that issue, but to advance their own agenda that is called exploiting the issue, not advocating, exploiting.
The OP is not LGB nor T. The inference that Hillary wrote DADT is really offensive. The actual fact is that Bill and Hillary are the very first two national Democrats ever to associate themselves with LGBT Democrats publicly. Hillary is a person who was called part of the militant homosexual agenda along with me by the Keynote speaker of the GOP convention before Bill was even elected. Liz Warren voted for the GOP that year, a Party that called me and Hillary militants and radicals. Some of Hillary's critics on DU also voted for Reagan, who was the decided enemy of gay America.
When Straight Democrats, who for the most part did not object to 'God in the Mix' nor to Rick Warren at our Inaugural, pretend that they were always big equality advocates it makes me want to puke.

I recall you as one who was for 'civil unions' and expressed fears that religion would be 'attacked' if marriage was the law. So who, really, are you to be critical of a person who has, really, stood with us since the rest of the Party shat on us for sport? Since Liz Warren was a Bush Republican?

I mean, you of course, like the rest of the so called 'Straight Left' refused to take part in any LGBT political actions for decades. So you, like the rest of the 'straight left' is utterly confused about all of the history, all of the sympathies, because you folks stayed home, you did not hear the speeches, you did not attend the demonstrations.

Exploitation of a people is not respect.

[DonCoquixote]

31. admittedly, I changed

not because of DU, but because I saw that the religous right was preapred to use dirty tricks to undermine everything, so i knew marriage was the only solution at that point. I "evolved."

But since you are talking about ME, skating the line between the personal attack and the general one, let's go ahead and talk about issues. I am not confused about Hillary's war stance, which opened the door for Isis, which opened the door for a lot of oppression of women and LGBT. Then again, it's not cofnusing to see her support the Saudis, who in addition to funding the people whop behead LGBT, also do it in their own borders.

As far as exploiting goes, facts are incovenient things. I remeber very well how the IT indistry was a haven for LGBT people because those industres offered full spousal benefits, regardless of whatever any government did. Guess who wound up losing those benefits when they got fired like everyone else?

No cause will get any respect if the economics that are needed to support that cause are undermined. All genders starve equally.

And war simply does not care what gender someone is. Ask any of the LGBT veterans who are fighting for assitance like everyone else, or still in the field getting blasted to hash like everyone else.

Personal attacks do not outwigh facts, especially facts that came from Hillary's mouth, and, most imporantly, which she is able to WALK BACK, and in her case, even gain a net benefit.

[DonCoquixote]

34. though to be fair

I do aprpeciate the fact she called for a constotuional amendment to kill citizens united. So did Obama, but I will give Hillary credit, especially if she puts it through, that way the GOP can stop getting funds from the Saudis that they use to screw us all here, all types, all genders.