UPDATED: Clinton Tells Minority Journalists: 'I Want You To Hold Me Accountable'

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo

In a Friday address to the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists at their joint convention, Hillary Clinton asked reporters to hold her accountable for her campaign promises.

"Keep holding all of us accountable," Clinton told attendees. "I do have this old-fashioned idea: When you run for president, you ought to tell the voters of America what you would do as president. So I am going to keep telling you what I would do because I want you to hold me accountable, press and citizens alike."

Clinton also addressed Republican opponent Donald Trump, slamming his divisive rhetoric and controversial comments throughout the course of his candidacy. "At every turn, he stokes division and resentment," she said. "He is harkening back to the most shameful chapters of our history and appealing to the ugliest impulses of our society."

She cited comments by Trump calling Mexican immigrants "rapists," as well as the candidate's record of retweeting white nationalists and his attacks on a federal judge's Mexican heritage.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-voters-press-hold-me-accountable

---

UPDATE:

Clinton Says She's Not Taking Latinos—Or Any Other Voters—For Granted

Hillary Clinton addressed her campaign's appeal to a diverse voter base during a question-and-answer session at a joint convention of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists on Friday afternoon, stressing that she's not taking the Latino vote for granted.

"We are in a room full of Latino journalists," one attendee asked. "Does the Democratic Party, does your campaign, take Latino voters seriously? Or are you taking them for granted, that they will automatically vote Democrat?"

In response, Clinton cited her history of outreach, saying that she has had "the great privilege of working for many years with Latino leaders, activists, businessmen and women." She went on to speak about babysitting through her church at the age of "11 or 12," and later working with Latinos through church exchanges, expanding legal services and working with representatives during her New York Senate campaign.

"So no," Clinton said. "I don't take any voter for granted, and I particularly don't take any voter who is placing their trust and confidence in me for granted."

-snip-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-latino-voters-not-taking-for-granted

[vi5]

1. "Hold me accountable" is an easy thing to say.....

...especially when things can always be blamed on somebody else.

Every time anyone tried to hold President Obama accountable per his similar proclamations we were told nothing was his fault and he couldn't do anything about anything because of the Republican congress.

Not saying some of that wasn't true but there were plenty of things that were in his control that we tried to pressure him on and were told by plenty of people not to because "He has this.." or whatever else.

[Chicago1980]

3. Not to say that some of that wasn't true?

How many time did he say vote, give me a congress that'll work with me and people sat on their asses?

"...there were plenty of things that were in his control that we tried to pressure him on and were told by plenty of people not to because "He has this.." or whatever else."

Such as?

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Exactly! Jeebus H. Crikey, but how hard is it for Americans to understand that CONGRESS

is the branch of gov't that every president needs in order to get their platform through?

Hillary just mentioned it during her presser: GOTV and make sure she gets a Congress that will work for her.

Everyone is so quick to judge President Obama when they willfully forget that he lost the House for a decade (the chamber that holds the Gov't's purse-strings) in 2010, and that people sat their asses out in 2012 and Republicans regained power in the Senate.

They forget the fundamental rule: You get the Gov't you've voted (or not voted) for.

[Beartracks]

19. Way true: You get the GOVT you GOTV for!

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

[vi5]

6. Off the top of my head.....

all the labor battles and strikes. When he was campaigning he said "I'll put on my walking shoes...."

Then when there were labor battles as large as we had seen in the past 20-30 years, and people called him on that we were told "Well, there are reasons....and he could do more harm than good....and blah blah blah."

And that's just off the top of my head.

And when he said "Hold me accountable..." when he was a candidate, he never at any point added the caveat "But only if I have a Democratic congress of more than 62 votes..."

[Chicago1980]

8. I remember people signing petitions, and I also recall the recall being unsuccessful.

The president needed to walk in order to get them to vote?

Then I remember that same governor being elected to a second term after the fact.

"And when he said "Hold me accountable..." when he was a candidate, he never at any point added the caveat "But only if I have a Democratic congress of more than 62 votes...""

What was he supposed to do, borrow Harry Potter's wand?

[vi5]

12. You realize you're proving my point, right?

Like I said, always excuses and it's always someone else's fault.

Thanks for the assist.

[George II]

16. You don't think that most of what didn't happen over the last 7+ years or the bad things that DID...

....happen had something to do with years of republican stonewalling and blocking?

[vi5]

21. Most? Yes.

All? No.

I think Republican obstructionism also provided a lot of convenient excuses for not trying or for not pushing harder for things that could have been pushed harder on..

I think a lot of people wanted to have it both ways and say that the President couldn't get anything done or that it wasn't his fault because of Republican obstructionism, but then insisted that he be given credit at every turn for everything that went right.

The truth is he did a lot of good and he dropped the ball on a lot of things as well. Anyone who believes that he did everything right over the past 8 years is either naive and foolish or lying.

The problem was that nobody was ever under any circumstances allowed to point out anything he did wrong, or psuh him in any particular direction or else they were dismissed as "haters" or "anti-Obama zealots".

And I suspect the next 4-8 years if we have another President Clinton will be exactly the same situation.

Which is why they should stop saying "Hold me accountable!" because they do not mean it and their most ardent supporters will never allow them to be held accountable no matter what.

[treestar]

25. That oversimplifies is

with a Tea Party Congress, there is nothing to hold President Obama accountable for. He would sign the bills. The nothing is ever good enough crowd are the ones to hold accountable and those who don't vote in off year elections.

[vi5]

27. Thank you....

...for being the third person to prove my point for me.

[bravenak]

28. There was no real point

[treestar]

32. I think you are holding accountable

for something Congress is also accountable for. A presidential candidate can only make promises on what bills they would promote,support, and sign or veto. Your point is invalid. There are three branches in the government. WE the People is what starts the Constitution. We are accountable too.

[andym]

2. There needs to be a better mechanism

to hold candidates accountable, issue by issue. President Obama asked us to hold him accountable, and many tried during his first two years. But besides groups like Move-on, its pretty difficult to get the numbers or attention to actually make a difference.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. You make a difference by giving the Democratic president a Congress he/she can work with.

Wailing and demonstrating for the sake of demonstrating won't do squat.

Had President Obama the Congress he needed all throughout his two terms - like G.W. Bush had - and not been hampered with that 2010 "shellacking" he got, do you honestly think he wouldn't have enacted more progressive policies? Seriously?

Either GOTV in ALL elections years - without exceptions - and give Democrats Congress, or don't complain when Republicans obstruct. Ever since President Obama won his election, they have been open and public about obstructing him in any and every way possible. Why don't the American people listen?

[andym]

13. He had a Congress that he could work with in 2009-10. Still there was little

capability to push for more progressive versions of the legislation.

[George II]

17. He did a lot in his first two years - have you sat in the oval office and experienced...

...what it's like to be President? Do you have any idea how difficult and time consuming it is to get things through Congress?

He was VERY effective when he had majorities and even when he didn't have majorities in Congress.

[andym]

20. No, but that is a weak argument to ask that I or anyone else be President to evalulate his work

Only a few people have sat in that office. If that were a prerequisite for criticism, only ex-presidents could criticize a President. I would not be at all surprised to discover that he felt he could have done better and made better decisions. Basically, your saying he did as well as he could. I and many others, including the President himself likely disagree. We'll see after he retires. He has already mentioned in 2012 that he regretted not explaining his policies as well as he might have and not inspiring people more. More recent articles claim he regrets that a public option was not included in the ACA, though the word "regret" did not appear in his JAMA article.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. And you know that's not true. My god, man. it wasn't that long ago! Have you already forgotten??

With Ted Kennedy out sick and the Republicans trying to stop Al Franken from taking his Senator's seat - that he won, fair and square, unseating that p.o.s. Norm Coleman who fought having to concede as long as he could - we didn't have the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority that the Republicans decided should be the new normal.

I'm surprised that I still have to remind people on a Democratic Party supporting site of this recent history.

[bravenak]

29. +1

[andym]

30. Except that supermajority did exist from the fall of 2009 to mid-winter of 2010

Franken was seated June 30, 2009. Kennedy was too sick to serve as of mid-March or so, but Paul Kirk was seated on September 24, 2009. So there was an active super majority from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown took office. During that time the ACA was passed in the Senate (December 24, 2009). Btw, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also passed before the super majority existed (before Franken was seated). In any case, there was around 4-5 months (fall 2009-Feb 2010) to push through anything Democrats and their independent allies agreed with. The ACA was prioritized and a real accomplishment, but of course it could have been a lot better had the President been able to convince Lieberman, for example. That might not have been possible, but perhaps it was, as in Washington almost everything is negotiable-- Reid and Obama missed their chance.

Sure, not a lot of time. But even in such an abbreviated time, it's possible to do a lot-- think FDR's 100 days and the New Deal. Now perhaps that's not a fair standard, but certainly I'm suspect that President Obama would have done things a little differently and accomplished more in that time, had he realized that the GOP was never going to cooperate with him again after March 2009.

[andym]

14. Congress was lost due mostly to loss of the statehouses before and during redistricitng

the GOTV matters, but not as much as local control of the statehouses. And that has more to do with Right Wing organization running rings around Democratic and progressive ones. Take a look at this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016164776

[BlueCaliDem]

24. Redistricting happened in 2010 - when the Census was taken. We have a new one in 2020, meaning,

GOTV. So you're wrong. Yes, redistricting happened immediately thereafter when Republicans took control of statehouses and legislatures, because that's what they do - voter suppression and everything else in order to win.

Your fawning over RW organizational skills aside, President Obama worked his ass off to GOTV on 2010, but due to the left not getting single-payer, and their talking-heads like Hartmann and Ed Schultz excoriating the president and Democrats over this and telling their listeners and fans to "purge the BlueDogs" from the House, they stayed home and loyal Republican voters were fired up and got out to vote in order to stop health care reform.

Result? We - meaning Democrats - lost the House for ten years.

If we don't give our Democratic leaders a Congress they can work with to get shit done, we have no one to blame but ourselves. A president is only able to bring his/her policies to fruition if Congress approves. That's how our gov't works.

[andym]

31. I was talkinig more about the loss of Congress for a decade.

That's what I meant by Congress was lost due mostly to loss of the statehouses before and during redistricting.
So I was correct in that respect. The "before" part covered the 2010 elections before the redistrictinh. The during part had to do with the results of that elections that gave the GOP their 10 year advantage.

You are partially correct in blaming turnout in 2010. The Democratic failure in the fall 2010 elections had to do more to do with off-year elections, and President Obama's and the Democratic Party's inability to convince the Nation that the USA was on the right track economically. That the so-called Left didn't participate in that election is more a myth than reality, depending how one defines the Left. Certainly, the Democratic base (traditional Democratic voters including union members, people of color, and young people who voted for the President in 2008) and Democratic leaning independents were under-represented. The GOP would call these the Left, but Democrats would consider these the centrist base of the party-- with the possible exception of some of the young people who were just voting for the first or second time in 2008. Polling before the election showed that independents were favoring the GOP by 10%-- that's a lot and enough to really hurt. Obviously if the Democratic base had turned out in the same numbers, the House might have been retained. But enthusiasm for the Democrats was low. Controversy over the ACA helped rile up conservatives, but most analyses of the election suggested that the voters overall felt that the nation was not moving in the right direction economically.

As for President Obama, he did work hard, but sometimes hard work is not enough, he did not seal the deal in 2010. He just could not convince voters that the USA was coming out of the recession. No one said it was going to be easy. Obviously the GOP obstruction played its part, but I think the President could have done a lot more to encourage optimism during those first two years, something like FDR's fireside chats perhaps-- he even agrees that he failed to inspire people as much as could have then.

[kestrel91316]

9. Your implication being that she is NOT honest?

Got it.

Enjoy your stay.

[auntpurl]

10. Enjoy your short stay!

MIRT!

[Moonwalk]

15. There is a lot to that "hold me accountable" request....

It essentially says: "Hey, Republicans. I'm daring journalists to hold me accountable. Your candidate calls journalists nasty names when they don't play softball with him. Well, I've invited them to play hardball with me, him and all of you. Let's see how well you do when journalists aren't in your pocket."

It's a good way to prove that she's honest and trustworthy (counter the propaganda that she's neither) while encouraging journalists to be the investigative bulldogs they ought to be--and, thus, making it harder on her opponent (and most republicans currently in office who make extravagant promises that they had no intention of keeping).

Good on her.

[Plucketeer]

11. Don't you need press confernces

for journalists to question you?

[George II]

18. Point?

[Plucketeer]

22. Point?

[Lucky Luciano]

23. I'm lucky Luciano and I approve that message. nt