Hillary Clinton launches global data project on women and girls

[Redfairen]

Source: Washington Post

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been weaving a theme of women's empowerment throughout her public life as she ponders another presidential run in 2016, launched a new partnership Thursday to measure and analyze the advancement of women and girls around the world.

With the 20th anniversary approaching of a historic 1995 women's conference, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is partnering with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to gather and study data on the global progress of women and girls and the gaps that remain.

The "No Ceilings" project will aggregate data from traditional sources, such as the World Bank, as well as less traditional ones, such as Google, to document progress since the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing. Clinton addressed that conference as first lady, declaring "women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights."

The partnership was announced Thursday morning at New York University, where Chelsea Clinton moderated a discussion on women and girls with Hillary Clinton and Melinda Gates.



Read more: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/hillary-clinton-launches-global-data-project-on-women-and-girls/

[FiveGoodMen]

1. With Hillary in charge

we can expect women to be equally under the thumb of the corporations.

[Beacool]

2. Can never give her a break, right?

[freshwest]

10. Nah! And Warren will be under the bus for supporting her. SSDD. I don't agree with all that she

has done, but after PBO's work for women, we need a person who takes the human rights of women, gays and minorities seriously. Because we have a reactionary force that is trying to take us back ot the dark ages.

For her it's been a life long thing. It is her main interest and always has been. As POTUS she can give that free rein and follow what Obama started and make it a reality around the world. It's badly needed.

Those who bash her on wars and economics, discount the fact both effect women very badly, and to lift up women will lead to less war and less economic oppression.

Those striving to lower the position of women to have more wars, inequality and push economic oppression are being ignored in the pile on against Hillary. Unions and other groups for equal rights and worker rights support her, but it's not cool. it's trendy to play the rebel and outlier, and condemn those who have been in a position to do things. It's cheap shots, really.

The status of women and all human rights is truly the last frontier in bringing down the old order. Some people can't see the forest for the trees. They are into slogans and pushing a past they imagine was better, and future they will not do anything to create.

All progress is made in the now, dealing with those who oppose you. Living and saving lives are not ideological wins, they are messy and uncertain and not up to our ideals all the time. To hold back is to say to a dying child, 'well, I actually prefer you be treated at the best facility instead of this lousy one here, so let's wait.' The world can't wait to be made perfect.

To expect Hillary or Obama to do the perfect thing in terms of our clearly imperfect memories of what are thought of as past glories of liberalism and progress, is likewise of no help at all. We can't live and do anything worthwhile in the past, it's dead. We can't wait for the future, we may not make it there. We make the future with the sloppy present.

I don't think Hillary is really a foreign policy pro, but until Obama ended the Bush wars, that was the path to being in DC for the last 50 years. I don't think the corporate world is what she wanted to be into either, but it was also the only way for the last 50 years to be empowered.

What she is good at, are human rights. She is in it for keeps, like Obama, to change the world. That scares a lot of people who do not want to admit they are advantaged by the status quo, so they will attack any change that doesn't fit their model.

I disregard anyone who is unwilling to take the risk to work in the present as the past and the future are distant and thus safe to talk about in one's mind and feel superior. The present and change is scary and uncertain. I think she will be good if she gets in, finally able to achieve what are her true ambitions. At least I'm willing to give her a chance.

JMHO.


.

[Beacool]

17. Hillary is a woman who can't just sit back and do nothing.

Even on vacation she just can't stay still. She's pursuing a cause that's dear to her heart and has been so since she was a young woman: children and women's causes. Even in something as innocuous as that, there are those here who reflexively have to bash her. It makes me sick.

If I want to read non-stop crap about the Clintons I can just go to a RW site and get my fill. One would think that one wouldn't have to read so much junk on a Democratic site.

[juajen]

83. Hear ye, Hear Ye!

[Beacool]

98. Hi!!!

[llmart]

94. Exactly how I feel.

There's an awfully lot of misogynism on this site. Underneath all the anti-Hillary rhetoric on DU is a prejudice against women. Sad to see it on DU, but then there has been an unsettling change to the kind of people on DU over the years.

[Beacool]

99. I think that people have a right to prefer some politicians over others.

Having said that, the virulence of the attacks against Hillary, and her husband too, are jut plain sickening. This is supposed to be a Democratic site. ALL Democrats should feel welcome. Instead, many of us feel attacked on a daily basis if we express support of the Clintons. Never mind that in the real world they are both very popular with Democratic voters, around here they are treated on a par with the Tea Party crowd. It's just ridiculous and depressing.

Furthermore, these posters are entitled to their opinion, but not their facts. Some of the stuff they write is not even true. They can't even be objective enough to judge a story on its merits. They have to inject their own take on it.

[JDPriestly]

19. Unless the corporations are properly regulated and in some cases broken up,

women will not have the rights they should have.

The same is true for African-Americans and other minorities.

We need to move toward economic justice if we are to rid our culture of sexism and racism. It is one thing to prohibit discrimination and quite another to provide enough opportunity so that it is not all claimed by the privileged.

[Gerhard28]

61. Going out on a limb there, aren't you?

"Properly regulated and in some cases, broken up"?

[JDPriestly]

66. No. What do you know about Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting?

We should require these huge conglomerates to sell some of their assets, their subsidiaries.

These big companies talk about capitalism and claim they like it. They will argue that competition is so superior to socialism. I tend to agree. But what they are operating is an economy that is no closer to competitive capitalism than socialism is. They are operating an economy of trusts (in the sense it was used in the Teddy Roosevelt era) and using the same business strategies that Standard Oil and the trusts of the Gilded Age used to squeeze out competition. We need better antitrust laws, and we need to enforce them so that our economy will be more creative and the financial power in it will be spread across our economy in a healthier fashion. Right now, too much of the risk in our economy is borne by too few players. That is not the way it should be if we are to have a resilient and creative economy. It's very bad. Might as well have just a few Soviets directing some of our industries. The system we have now is just as fragile and bureaucratic.

[Gerhard28]

67. Trusts don't need to be "busted."

They need to be nationalized and put under democratic control.

There is a natural tendency toward monopoly under capitalism, as the big fish eat up the little fish. That's why "trust-busting" doesn't work. Look at what happened to TR's "reforms." Monopoly capitalism is back and bigger than ever. Even the Sherman act has been gutted.

[JDPriestly]

73. We consumers allow, even encourage monopolization by our laziness about researching

the products we need and want to buy.

But certain chain stores have really bought such a huge share of the market that we our choices are narrower and narrower. We need to shop more consciously. For example, there are sources for buying books other than Amazon. But so often, the knee-jerk reaction is to shop at Amazon on line. Powell's in Portland, Oregon comes to mind.

[juajen]

84. I read a lot of ebooks, and, frankly, I love the ease of clicking to read.

I am afraid that progress means change, as it always has, and that computers, kiindles and smart phones are here to stay until we advance the further. Change is not always bad, it just needs to be structured so that it does not hurt the country's waterways, air and fiscal health.

[JDPriestly]

86. But computers make it easier for us to research new products as well as old ones.

I agree. Change needs to be structured so that it does not hurt the country's waterways, air and fiscal health. Also I would add so that it assists us in creating a safe place for our citizens especially our children and that it provides good education for all, not just children.

[Larry Ogg]

27. It takes some highly developed well tuned magical thinking skills...

in order to believe that some hard core champion of capitalism gives a shit about the rights and needs of anyone else but their own.

It's a sad reality that so many people refuse to see the obvious and keep screwing themselves. Convinced things will get better as long as they keep on supporting rich people who ensure that the government stays rigged in such a way that it always serves the best interest of rich people, regardless of the controlling party, BS, and bogus promises they feed the incorrigible voters.

As If eight more years of Capitalism, and Reagonomics under Obama hasn't been good enough, let's give it a try under Hillary, and maybe something magical and good will happen. Not!

Brand Obama once said during one of his we need change speeches, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." We'll guess what, the rich money pigs did very well under Obama, so nothing changed for the better when it come to the rich getting richer of the backs of labor, and Hillary Clinton, at best, will be more of the same.

[reddread]

28. somebody has to fight for the rights of H1-B workers

or employers, whichever motivates her more.
not hard to guess.

[Beacool]

29. What the hell does your diatribe have to do with the posted article?

At the current time, Hillary is working at her family's foundation and not in elected office.

[Larry Ogg]

36. Far to many politicians pretend to have a noble cause just to get elected...

But noble causes are to often used as a deceptive facade to which rich elitist, like the Clinton's, use to gain support from the people they rob, i.e. those who work for a living.

The Clinton's have done as much harm to the working class in this country as any free trade, pro-deregulation republican.

But maybe your one of the few who have greatly benefited from free trade, and deregulation.

[reddread]

37. padding the resume for the lower classes

the 1% resume is just fine.

[Larry Ogg]

42. Lower / middle class resume shows ones potential to do the labor of creating wealth.

The 1% resume shows ones potential to con the workers so you can gain and control the wealth without actually doing any of the physical work.

[Beacool]

64. You lost me at the heading.

Pretending????????? They have served since their younger years and they will continue to serve in some capacity until their last breath. That's who they are. Your cynicism is unwarranted. They are not pretending to be anything. They are who they are.

If you don't like them, and she does choose to run again, then simply vote for someone else.

This article was about empowering women and girls, not for the usual crowd to vent their spleen. I guess staying focused on the topic is too much to ask for the Clinton hating crowd.

Gee..............

[Whisp]

69. They served to the tune of a 100 million bucks.

I think you and I have a different meaning of what 'serve' really is.

[Beacool]

71. I see, they are not entitled to earn money?

The Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH in decades. They have earned their money after the WH and done so legitimately through his speeches and their books.

[MADem]

78. They lived in "public housing" for most of their married life, until they bought

a house in NY.

Haters are gonna hate--they just can't help themselves. When their heroes support HRC for the Presidency, that popping sound we will hear will be heads exploding.

[Gerhard28]

62. That don't be cool, Bea.

[swilton]

4. Well said

Exactly as I was thinking - nepotism at its finest and the servant of the patriarchal elite.

[Auntie Bush]

5. Can't anyone here say anything nice about Hillary?

Does one have to always attack the women...who very well may be our nominee? Is that too much to ask maybe once in awhile? Talk about dividing our party! Now I guess I'd better go hide.

[JDPriestly]

20. The message is that Hillary should not run. She should give way to someone perhaps Elizabeth

Warren. We need a woman to run for our party, but Hillary is from the past. She does not represent the change we need.

[joshcryer]

21. Hillary will be the most qualified candidate in modern history.

We don't need another junior senator or someone with little experience (yes I realize Warren, by caprice, got seniority, but she hasn't led for any appreciable amount of time).

[ForgoTheConsequence]

41. Qualified?

The White House isn't something that anyone is entitled to. She showed how qualified she was when she trusted Bush and voted to authorize the Iraq war.


No more political dynasties.

[JDPriestly]

44. Hillaryh's ideas about economic policy especially toward the 1% and the financial sector will be

more of the same. That is a major problem. If we continue to have a society in which the top earners take such a large slice of the pie (and they have now taken over ownership of the land and are now landlords of a huge number of Americans, larger probably than ever before), we are approaching a danger zone in the economy. In addition, the very, very rich buy politicians. We are getting to a point at which ordinary people have less and less control over their lives, less of a sense of ownership in the country. That is dangerous. It does not necessarily mean armed revolt. It can mean apathy and the descent into an economy like the third world, a people paralyzed by poverty and hopelessness.

Hillary is oblivious to this, totally unsympathetic. Yet this is a crucial point in our history. She wants to help people in the third world, but hanging around with bankers and working for their campaign dontations and talking around the dire economic divisions in the country are what she seems to be doing.

Helping women around the world is very important, but giving families in this country good subsidized day-care is more important. Working for better child and family leave with pay in the US is more important. Offering education to parents about how to raise their children so that we decrease the number of serial killers in the country is more important than selling life insurance or cars. The life insurance and cars will sell themselves. The children will not nurture themselves. Why, for instance, don't we see ads on TV about various ways to handle a three-year-old's temper tantrums? A person who cares about women and children might be inclined to fund and advocate for such an effort. It is easy to point a finger at people in other countries and how they abuse women. It is hard to change conditions in your own life and country so that you eliminate the kind of abuse in your own country. \

Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe Hillary is approaching the economic disparity and the subtle kind of abuse. From what I have seen the abuse of women consists of making inhuman demands on women and families and expecting women with children to work long hours and then come home and deal with exhausting child-care, financial, marital and other issues. If Hillary has an answer for that problem which is central to the problems of American families, I'm for her.

Elizabeth Warren does deal with the economic challenges that most American families are facing today. That is why I like her so much. She speaks to the inequity and the abandonment of the hard-working people in our country. I have not heard Hillary say much about any of the issues I raised. So I am waiting. Christian fundamentalists speak more to those issues than do a lot of Democrats. That is why they attract so many struggling families. The issues I have raised here are in the forefront. Lack of sufficient Social Security funding for older Americans is also a huge problem for many American families. Because when grandmother and grandfather find themselves unemployed in their 50s and without retirement savings in their 60s and 70s, younger families find themselves supporting their parents when the young need to be taking care of their children. That is another very serious problem in the US.

I am not hearing Hillary's views or voice on these issues.

[JDPriestly]

52. Hillary with all her experience does not really have new idease.

She has spent so much time talking to the top guys that she does not know the struggling America.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise focuses on the struggling America. Easing that struggle, making the playing field more fair, is the primary challenge of our time. That is Elizabeth Warren's forte.

Elizabeth Warren has experience in the thing that matters most right now: how to right the floundering middle class ship in our economic ocean. If we don't get that right, we have lost our democracy.

Hillary's experience and knowledge of the struggle of America's working people is about 15 years behind the times. She lives and eats and breathes the thin and perfumed air of the elite, of the upper 1% and of the D.C. "leaders." She will give Americans more of the same pretense at democracy, more of the same outmoded economic rhetoric and leave the middle-class to fend for themselves. She will foster more bribery without at all intending to do so simply because she will turn a blind eye to the horrible effects of Citizens United (even though that lawsuit was brought on her behalf I believe). She will collect millions and millions of dollars from the very people who are now free to buy our country thanks to Citizens United but she will never attack the core problem: the rapid rush of our country toward plutocracy and some modern variation of feudalism.

[joshcryer]

79. If she uses Obama's PR team, they'll make up new ideas.

That's easy.

She can't run on Terry McAuliffe's tired strategy. Ideally she'd use David Plouffe but he already ruled out running her campaign (he did say he'd act in an advisory role). Axelrod also ruled it out. So if she falls to the tired Clinton strategy of going with insiders and "who you know" she might run with Terry McAuliffe which would be the worst mistake she ever made. And she will lose to the next best woman candidate assuredly.

Otherwise rebranding is pretty easy, it's that Clinton needs to watch it more than a male candidate because, just like how she spoke in a southern accent, or how she talked in hyperbole about being under sniper fire (I have no doubt she remembered it being a very sticky situation, but she embellished), she needs to work hard on not doing those things. They will be scrutinized by the left and right respectively.

I think her campaign will be far left of Obama's in due in part to Obama, actually. Obama came out for gay marriage, she came out for gay marriage. Obama said marijuana isn't that bad, she will have to say marijuana isn't a big deal and even call for legalization. Keystone will be completed by then (it's already mostly built, it just needs to be hooked up to Canada's side), so she can call for re-export restrictions (ie, the fuel doesn't get exported on paper, it has to be refined and sold here, on paper, mind you). She can bring NAFTA back up and say she wants to renegotiate (she said that first then Obama agreed, which he never has attempted to actually do, but that's another story). Of course, she'll be blamed for Keystone and TPP, but as SoS she can rightly say that she was only following Presidential orders (and Obama would not refute that because he's the freaking President, of course whatever the SoS does is under his blessing, any other potential is literally weakening the office of the President). She'll note how she voted against telecom immunity (Obama voted for it to look strong against McCain), and call for new investigations as to the NSA and spying on citizens.

Further, she can argue for infrastructure rebuilding, call back to Biden's statements about infrastructure (and if he runs they can both bounce the idea off of one another). Education is another thing, which Obama sort of hinted at with free pre-school for all, she can tack that on to her platform. Energy independence, she can throw that out there, call for more renewables (by then coal will have dropped another 5%, though coal exports will have jumped 20%; so this is really a sneaky commitment).

None of these things are real commitments, though, but man, if she can give half a good a speech as Obama they will sound populist, they will sound brilliant, grandiose. In the information age which is coinciding with a new generation of voters, it isn't that hard to take new positions that are really just common ground with the population.

Oh, and if she chooses Julian Castro as her VP (which I think is likely because he has the best credentials of all the Latino candidates) even liberals will be able to stomach her choice, because that means in no more than 8 years we would have a young, truly progressive Hispanic candidate to run. Sooner if health problems crop up (I know that sounds bad but some will be thinking it and others will unfortunately hope for it).

[JDPriestly]

81. What about financial sector reform?

What about updating and enforcing antitrust laws? What about better oversight of the NSA?

Elizabeth Warren is really strong on financial sector reform and might consider talking about antitrust laws especially, for example, in the area of media. I don't know what her view is on the NSA or what her views are on foreign policy. I want to see her run because we desperately need some reform of our economy. We also need a government that regulates certain industries especially those that can pose a danger to our environment and our health.

I don't know whether Hillary who has so much support from the financial sector and from industry could really carry out strong policies that we need.

And again, the big problem with Hillary is that, fair or not, she has this huge task of overcoming the mean talk about her. Women will vote for her, but she cannot govern unless she also can gain the trust of men. I think that Elizabeth Warren would be more likely to gain the trust of men because she is so strong on economic issues that clearly harm the middle class and working men.

Hillary is not strong on those issues at all. Also, Hillary's definition of the middle class is way out of tune with the real America. If you live in urban centers like LA or New York, there may be a crowd of families with an income of $250,000 a year. But that is not the case in most of America. Hillary really goofed when she claimed that a family income of $250,000 was middle class. It is upper middle class and unthinkably out of reach for most Americans.

[joshcryer]

82. You and I both know Wall Street runs this country.

No one is getting elected going against Wall Street. The minute she calls for Glass–Steagall reinstatement, the minute she calls for restrictions on Credit Default Swaps, the minute she calls for dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, or other stock related restrictions...

...her chances of becoming President becomes increasingly unlikely.

This is the reality we live with.

And don't be fooled, Clinton ran with the $250k number because that's what people in this country think is the middle class:

She like all politicians are completely in tune with the demographics and what they think. They actually run on what people think vs the actual realities of the country. Which is why I don't like politicians to begin with.

[JDPriestly]

85. No. People in this country do not think that $250,000 family income is middle class.

Only the upper middle class think that. How can it be with minimum wage so low and so many jobs paying only minimum wage?

As for Wall Street running the company. As long as that is the case, we are in big trouble. We need reform for the banks and for Wall Street. We can't have meaningful environmental, educational, health or any other area of policy unless we get reform for Wall Street. And we need a candidate who knows how to reform Wall Street and the banks without completely destroying our economy. Elizabeth Warren is the only person who has shown the ability to figure out the policies that could attain that kind of middle-of-the road, reasonable reform. It's just not what Hillary does. But as I said, we will not improve our economy until we get away from this short-term, knee-jerk reactions to our problems that are the result of the fact that at strategy-less, rather immediate profit-oriented Wall Street kind of thinking causes. The issue for Wall Street is what stocks are hot and where is the stock market right now.

That is not unimportant but today as you point out, that is running our economy. It does not work for our economy. It has not worked. We have been left behind because we do not have even the concept of a long-term economic strategy. And the reason we never even touch that topic in our media or in our Congress or in our thinking is that Wall Street is geared to making profits right now and not thinking long-term about where our country is going.

As long as we have people running in the forefront of our Democratic Party who are beholden to the short-term thinkers (airheads) on Wall Street and not to the middle class and working people of our country, we will continue to lag further and further behind. We will still have innovators, but in terms of our economy, we will continue to have such a huge disparity between the middle class and the wealthy that our economy will just barely toddle along. We are not beginning to even think strategically and long-term about climate change. And whether it is caused by human or natural forces, we have to deal with it. Both Republicans and Democrats, at least the half-way sane ones need to understand that Wall Street is not fitted, to think about long-term issues like water shortages or shifting to new energy sources. That' not their job. Their job is to make profits for their investors today. And that is not the way to run a country.

[joshcryer]

87. I support Warren and I believe she should run.

I do not believe she will win unless the supposed internet warriors of Warren decide to back her completely.

I was in the draft Gore movement. We were railroaded and then Gore decided not to run. I refuse to do that again. Unless Warren runs I will consider her a no show and will not expend one iota of effort making up fantasy scenarios where she might run or where she'd be the better candidate.

Get her to run and we'll have a different discussion.

[JDPriestly]

109. Neither had Obama, and there are advantages to getting a president

who has not yet decided to sell out, who can still remember what it is like to get up out of her own bed in her own house in her own apartment in the morning and go to work in her own town without thinking about the D.C. rat-race.

Someone who can still remember what it is like to worry about what if she loses her job or can't work for some reason and has no health care and can't make the mortgage payments. Or someone who at least as had a friend or co-workers in that situation.

[Beacool]

30. The message from the majority of Democratic voters is that she should run.

Just because the LW version of the Tea Party doesn't like her, it does not mean that the vast majority of Democratic voters don't want her to run.

THAT's the real message.

[JDPriestly]

43. We, so-called on the left-wingers, follow politics carefully. I've been following politics since I

was 9 and I am now 70.

I just don't think that Hillary is a good candidate. That's my opinion. The majority may disagree with me, but I have thought this through and I have pretty good political instincts. We will regret it if we nominate Hillary. Just as we regretted it when we nominated some other candidates. She has too much baggage. Too many people who might vote for another candidate will not vote for her for a number of reasons including her personality and the horrible amount of propaganda already thrown at her (mostly false) in the past. It is very hard to overcome that.

[hrmjustin]

46. What makes you think that Warren could win?

While I agree she is great in this issues, I am not sure she could win a general.

Hillary should not give way to anyone IMHO but I think there should be a primary.

[JDPriestly]

50. I would like to see a primary. I would like to see the media give Elizabeth Warren's message

a lot more air time.

Why could Elizabeth Warren win? Because she is saying what Americans want to hear in words Americans can understand.

Because she is unafraid to attack the central issues and problems in our society.

Because she is willing to step on toes when appropriate.

Because she is not beholden to the banks and the financial sector.

Because she not only really cares about the middle class and working Americans but she understands what got them into the dire straits they are in and how to get them out.

Because she does not blame people who are struggling against odds they cannot surmount on their own but rather blames those whose pandering, lies and greed got the struggling where they are.

[hrmjustin]

51. All great reasons to vote for her.

My concern is can she come off as likable and will the media even give her a chance. If she feels the desire to run she should but she has to prove to the party she can win. If she coukd beat Hillary then I think she has a much better shot of winning than if Hillary steps aside for her.

[JDPriestly]

53. Yes. But I think we should nominate Elizabeth Warren. Republicans would have a terrible time

arguing with Warren's points of view.

[hrmjustin]

54. I agree on the issues they will have a hard time beating her.

I hope if she runs that She is strong enough to deal with their attacks.

[Walk away]

89. If you can get anyone besides yourself to vote for her....

you've got a shot
Clinton stands at an eye-popping 73 percent in a hypothetical 2016 primary race with Biden, the sitting vice president, who is the only other candidate in double digits at 12 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has signed a letter along with a handful of other Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, is at 8 percent. And that's it.

That lead is almost three times as large as the one Clinton enjoyed in Post-ABC polling in December 2006, the first time we asked the 2008 Democratic presidential primary ballot question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/30/hillary-clinton-is-the-biggest-frontrunner-for-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-ever-yes-ever/

[reddread]

90. dateline January 2014 n/t

[Walk away]

91. This was a couple of weeks ago...what is your point???

Is Warren beating out Hillary in the polls now? I had no idea!

[reddread]

93. strawman nowhere near the point

https://www.google.com/#q=an+eternity+in+politics

[Walk away]

95. Wow! What a waste of time!

Why didn't you just posts an actual answer. How about those new polls showing that gap closing....tick, tick, tick..

Here's a poll of progressive activists from a year ago that has Warren up a whole 5% points over Hillary. It seems like even the biggest dreamers are split between the two of them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_1613671.html

[reddread]

96. exactly what it is

unless hype is what matters.
a loooooong loong way to go yet.
She may have the backing of the 1% and the morally indifferent,
but there is a paucity of real reasons to support her from a liberal point of view.
hence the gripping effort to collect data.
How will those dead millions in Africa, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan be represented?

[Walk away]

97. I hated the fact that the Bush administration lied us into 2 wars...

and I believe that if Hillary Clinton and a large majority of Congress had known the truth, that they would never have voted to give the President the power to send troops to Iraq. I don't really see the logic in blaming Hillary Clinton for Syrian and African deaths. She was carrying out the President's policy.

There are many reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton from a Liberal point of view. I think the past three years makes it pretty obvious that no matter who is the president, they can't get shit done without Congress and even less than shit without the Senate too. Elizabeth Warren barely got herself elected let alone anyone else. I don't see any Democrats looking for her endorsement but she did seek out the Clintons to help in her struggling campaign. And both the Clintons have worked hard and really helped elect Democrats at every level of government.

This is politics in the United States, not a fairy land. Hillary Clinton is, so far, the only Democratic candidate who is capable of giving us back Congress and a voting majority in the Senate.

[Beacool]

32. Please don't hide.

Develop the rhinoceros skin that Hillary was talking about. Learn not to care about what detractors think. I simply don't give a flying f*ck what they have to say about Hillary, the Pope or any other person who offends their sensibilities.

Haters are always gonna hate.

[Auntie Bush]

34. Sooo true!

Happy Valentines day Bea.

[Beacool]

55. Thank you, the same to you!!!!

[hrmjustin]

48. I have just gotten used to it at this point.

[Beacool]

56. Yeah, it's par for the course on this site.

[Kurovski]

49. The Roosevelts themselves would have been detractors of the Clintons.

"Haters", as you so put it.

Even a cursory study of history would reveal that very real possibility

They were repulsed by the corporate element running roughshod over the nation.

H Clinton is on PR junket. It will be ongoing from here on out.

[hrmjustin]

58. I think she will be our next president.

Whoever wins I hope we all support our nominee.

[hrmjustin]

47. I am used to hearing it and just accept that others don't see it as I do but they will get

pushback from me.

[woo me with science]

9. +1000000 Another corporate administration a la Clinton-Goldman-Sachs would be a disaster for women.

This is analogous to *claiming* to care about income inequality while simultaneously trying to fast-track the most predatory "free trade" agreement in US history.

Another Third Way corporate administration will devastate all of America, but women will unquestionably be among its most severely ravaged victims.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. +1

You are correct. This is all about her 2016 presidential run.

[antigop]

26. yep. and they can look forward to their jobs being shipped overseas

or losing their jobs to an h-1b visaholder.

Microsoft and h-1b:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/03/176134694/Whos-Hiring-H1-B-Visa-Workers-Its-Not-Who-You-Might-Think

[AgingAmerican]

60. Haters gonna hate

nt

[shenmue]

104. No, we can't.

Not if she fights for unions and equal wages, as she's done for a long time.

I lived in New York when she was in the Senate. I know how she'd actually govern.

Is anything ever negative enough for some people?

[Beacool]

3. Considering what she's been through,

I'm not surprised that she would take Eleanor Roosevelt's advice to heart.

“One of the best pieces of advice that I have ever heard from anyone is from Eleanor Roosevelt in the 1920s who said that women in politics or in public roles should grow skin like a rhinoceros,” Clinton said. “I think there is some truth to that.”

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. What gets me is that most of the time they are lies

And distortions. I sure wish people would do their home work before regurgitating the bigfatlies.

[Beacool]

7. Exactly!!!!

Even here I read RW talking points.

[freshwest]

11. Beat me to it. Same tone as the RW, too. No interest in the facts. That's RW. n/t

[Beacool]

31. Read the comments.

The vile ones have nothing to do with the posted article. It's just unadulterated Hillary hate. It's similar crap that one reads at RW sites. It's totally disgusting. I guess their next step is to bash her appearance and age, then they'll really be the same.

[freshwest]

45. Her, and every Democrat get the same treatment. But she's 'extra-special' for abuse, isn't she?

She's their trash bin for hatred, like Obama and the FLOTUS. After a while, so much is dumped it overflows and all they see is their own trash, not the person under it.

[Beacool]

57. If the lady offends them so much, why read a post about her?

There are dozens of other threads that they can peruse. Ditto for any article on the Pope.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. Hillary is a center right politician.

I'm calling her out like I would any other right winger, regardless of party.

[Gerhard28]

63. Yes, and that "center" keeps moving farther right all the time.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. Will she count the ones who died in Iraq?

In the war that she supported....

[Beacool]

16. Why don't you go ask her?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. She wouldn't be bothered with someone like me.

I don't have 25k to buy my way into her fundraiser, nor do I work for Goldman Sachs.



Not to mention she didn't listen the first time when there were thousands of us in the streets. She chose to listen to George Bush. Can you trust someone with such poor judgement? I can't.



Nice of you to roll your eyes though. Hundreds of thousands dead was just a hiccup, could have happened to anyone, right? She'll make better decisions in the future, I'm sure.

[TheMathieu]

12. Anyone that can only find something negative to say about this...

I wouldn't want any leader in power that they'd support.

And I'd imagine most of the people they claim to support wouldn't want them as allies.

[freshwest]

13. Correct. Fickle people abandon their leader in times of trouble. n/t

[RobertEarl]

14. It's just politics here

It is good to see that women are fighting for all of our rights. Anyone who objects to that is to be refused respect.

But Hillary hasn't even declared herself to be in the running. And she certainly has not won the nomination. Until then she and everything she does is fair game in politics. I'm sure Hillary would tell you that along with thick skin, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Remember there is such a thing as a PUMA. PUMA's deserve no respect.

[Auntie Bush]

35. Yes they do. They are beautiful.

[Beacool]

15. It gets very tiring to combat the Right wingers on other sites.

Just to come here, a supposed Democratic site, and have to start all over again with the crap flung by some who are never happy with anyone other than some pure ideal who couldn't get elected president in this country in a million years (Bernie Sanders comes to mind, for one).

[JoePhilly]

23. Hillary does something positive and it pisses off the haters ...

... on the right and the left.

Says more about them than anything else.

[Beacool]

33. Hear, hear!!!

She doesn't even know about it. She's far too busy to read the crap they write about her. That's one way she keeps her sanity.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. Bill and Melinda Gates? barf. Bill Gates idea on furthering anybody is by making all students

learn the exact same thing at the exact same time and if they don't test high enough on state standardized tests then their school loses funding.

[joshcryer]

22. Eh, Common Core isn't that big of a deal.

And it's a separate from testing.

The problem is teachers don't want to teach anything new since they've been regurgitating the same crap year over year since the onset of institutionalized education. I advocate a move away from the institutionalized, industrial, sit down and shut up model to the Sudbury or democratic school model.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

39. Are you a teacher?

This post reeks of ignorance.

[reddread]

25. heartfelt measures! Happy Valentines Day Hillary!

[Sunlei]

59. Clinton Foundation does a lot of great work!

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/

[Beacool]

65. The bashers don't care.

All they care about is that if an article is about either Clinton, they reflexively have to trash it.

They make me sick. Republicans don't get the level of disrespect the Clintons get on this site.

[Whisp]

68. Let's see how well the women and girls in your sweat shops in Haiti think of

Hillary's empowerment b.s.

Let's all ask the survivors of all the dead women and children in Iraq if they think their loved one were empowered.

[reddread]

70. some really big accomplishments, actually

http://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/dr-congo

[Beacool]

72. And how is that Hillary's fault?

[reddread]

74. sins of the husband should not be revisited? n/t

And all Imelda Marcos ever did was collect shoes.

[Beacool]

76. That's just ridiculous and as stupid as Rand Paul's assertions about Bill

and how it could affect a Hillary candidacy.

[reddread]

75. "There is a special place in hell for women who dont help other women"

-Madeleine Albright

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

should be plenty of room for both of them.

[Beacool]

77. Your post is more a reflection on you than the two women you just wished in hell.

Disgusting.........

[reddread]

80. "WE think the price (500,000 dead children in Iraq) was worth it"

yes, it is disgusting.
the level of intellectual effort you bring to the table in this thread says a lot too.
never mind the moral vacuum.

[SamKnause]

92. Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beacool]

101. B.S............

[Beacool]

100. Have a nice day...........

Next time avoid responding to my posts. I have nothing else to say to you.

[reddread]

103. I have lots to say about Hillary and how easily she is "fooled" into bombing women children and men

so dont bring her up
you should just put me on ignore.
but Im not about to do the same for you.

[Beacool]

105. I don't put anyone on ignore.

I just choose not to interact with folks like you. You can go crap on someone else's post.

[reddread]

106. really?

youre the boss of me?

[Beacool]

107. No, but I'm the boss of ME.

And I choose not to deal with you anymore.

[reddread]

108. Still waiting for the crickets to strike up a tune over this bit of threadkill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=713297

[DiverDave]

88. And how many will be helped? ZERO

Fuck spending money on "studies"
I'm so sick of this I want to vomit.

[Beacool]

102. Go vomit somewhere else.

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

[DiverDave]

110. No one asked ME when we gave trillions to rich people

and until we get MONEY out of politics we will get more of the same.
Hillary just spoke at the banksters rally (earning a bunch) that doesn't bother you?
And I will keep screeching until you and yours realize its fixed, ALL OF IT.

So alert on me, youll prolly get it taken down.
But it doesn't change the facts.

[Beacool]

111. Unlike others who go crying to the moderators, I have never alerted on anyone.

I also have never placed anyone on ignore. I abhor censorship.