2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Channels Obama in Thunderous First 2016 Speech
Meet the new Barack Obama: Her name is Hillary Clinton.
As Democrats transfer their allegiance from the candidate of Yes We Can and the rallies with hundreds of thousands to the candidate of the understated YouTube campaign kickoff and the small roundtable discussion, they may think they are giving up the kind of soul-stirring speech that sends partisan hearts fluttering.
But in the first speech of her nascent campaign, Clinton seemed to be borrowing a rhetorical page from her one-time opponent, who on the 2008 campaign trail placed his own candidacy within the larger American struggle for justice.
Speaking to a friendly crowd at the Women in the World Summit in Manhattan, Clinton thundered about the rights and opportunities, political or otherwise, of women and girls around the world.
It is hard to believe that in 2015 so many women still pay a price for being mothers. It is also hard to believe that so many women are also paid less than many for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color, Clinton said to sustained applause. And if you dont believe what I say, look to the World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of feminist thought. Their rankings show that the United States is 65th out of 142 nations and other territories on equal pay.
We should be No. 1.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/23/hillary-clinton-channels-obama-in-thunderous-first-2016-speech.html
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And how can you take down the 1% when you're ONE OF THEM?
This is nothing like Obama eight years ago.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)They are such different animals that I don't think the universe can accept the attempt to compare them.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I remember those!
And, I remember when FDR's child worked for NBC for $600,000/year.
Oh, wait, that wasn't FDR.
My bad.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.
"Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm
Six decades. Who do you suppose started the program Bubba was bragging about having ended?
Whose program do you think he was ending when he did that? How about when he repealed Glass Steagall? How about when the Telecommunications Act "amended" the 1934 Act?
You're funny.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Would you be comfortable being held responsible for something your spouse did, and you had no hand in, other than being a spouse?
merrily
(45,251 posts)herself from Bill's Presidency, though apparently that may be a new strategy. Third, my issue is the DLC/Third way.philosophy, and she sure hasn't disassociated from that, either. Podesta, Summers, etc. So, even if her married name were Hillary Bessinger, I would have likely made a very similar comment. Fourth, I am sick of insinuations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Second ... Oh. Never mind.
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and once again was disappointed, as you follow the same template, every time. {Sighhh}
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's not a question that you should answer to/for me; but, something you should explore in the quiet of your life.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Almost the opposite, actually.
BTW, your not walking away after using the pig "admonition" pretty much belies the stance you attempted when you used it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)majority o Glass-Stegall?
Why would you not know how successful Clinton's welfare reforms were in getting people off of welfare and into jobs by giving educational assistance, job training incentives and child care? Ending welfare as we know it was a good thing. Why wouldn't a Democrat know that? Why wouldn't a real Democrat have even the slightest knowledge of the statistics that showed how much Clinton's initiatives improved the lives of American citizens? Clinton did twice veto the welfare reform legislation, but then they didn't have a veto--proof majority.
in 2000 7 million people were off of welfare and into the workforce
A study published in 2001 by a Clinton critic who had predicted social disaster and then quit the Clinton administration in 1995--showed a remarkable effect of welfare reform: The number of children living with single parents dropped by 8% in the five years after the bill was passed. "The percentage of all black children raised by married parents jumped from 34.8% to 38.9% during the period studied, a 10% increase in just five years."
Greatly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit allowing working poor and newly working former welfare recipients to rise above the poverty level
The Administrations budget proposes $255 million for the first year of a new Fathers Work/Families Win initiative to promote responsible fatherhood and support working families, critical next steps in reforming welfare and reducing child poverty. These new competitive grants will be awarded to business-led local and state workforce investment boards who work in partnership with community and faith-based organizations, and agencies administering child support, TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid, thereby connecting low-income fathers and working families to the life-long learning and employment services created under the Workforce Investment Act and delivered through one-stop career centers.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been committed to helping homeless Americans become more self-sufficient. HUD alone has invested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people since 1993 -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. The Continuum of Care approach has helped more than 300,000 homeless people get housing and jobs to become self-sufficient. The Continuum of Care made clear that homelessness was more than simply a housing problem, and focused attention on long-term solutions which included housing as well as job training, drug treatment, mental health services, and domestic violence counseling. The Administration is also proposing to expand access to mainstream health, social services, and employment programs for which the homeless may be eligible through a new $10 million program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, States, and large counties.
Establishment of Americorps
Establishment of enterprise zones (I think that is what they were called) to help impovershed areas attrack businesses and job opportunities.
Bill Clinton signed the bill. In response, Edelmans husband, Peter, resigned his post in the Department of Health and Human Services saying this was the worst thing Bill Clinton had done. Contrary to Edelmans predictions, welfare-reform proved an enormous success, maybe the greatest domestic achievement of Clintons presidency.
Welfare reform didn't continue to succeed the way it did when Clinton was President. During the Great Recession many poor were hurt (as were all of us) and the decentralization allowed some states to hurt the poor more than others, but many of the issues had to do with post-Clinton management of the programs and not the programs themselves (for example not increasing the funding to match the rate of inflation).
Welfare reform was coming with or without Bill Clinton. The Republicans held Congress and they first proposed all the cuts with nothing to help the individual in terms of education, child care or workforce training. The notion that Clinton failed at welfare reform is only believed by the Socialists and the right wingers who attack everything a Democrat does.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, the veto proof argument doesn't cut it.
Also, I just wrote about an allegedly veto proof majority the other day. It's impossible to know whether one exists unless there is an actual veto because an actual veto has changed votes.
The Presidential veto exists for a reason. You can't sign a bill AND get credit for a veto, too.
I couldn't disagree with you more about ending "welfare as we know it."
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)protection and help with housing opportunities.
And where is your proof that Clinton lobbied Congress to get the votes to repeal Glass Steagall? And where is your proof that Glass-Stegall led to the financial crisis to begin with? Most economists don't feel that was a factor. The CDO's ratings agencies and bankers are often named but most don't name Glass-Stegall.
merrily
(45,251 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)views regarding the crisis. I don't latch onto the Socialist bullshit about Glass-Stegall creating the banking crisis. And of course, once again you offer no proof of your claim.
Here is the opinion of The Economist on the financial crisis (a left leaning highly respected economics magazine):
http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704698004576104500524998280
https://capitalinstitute.org/blog/six-root-causes-financial-crisis/
Response to okaawhatever (Reply #31)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)An economics expert has to demand proof that the Clinton White House lobbied Congress to repeal Glass Steagall?
Claims FDR helped the "middle class" with mention of the poor, and talks about socialist bullshit?
Dude, somedays, I just can't put up with this.
I don't know where you studied economics or for how long, but you need to study more.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Where things like maternity pay and ending the gender wage gap, and women health policy are top issues.
Clinton would be remiss to blow her entire campaign issues right out of the gate, she must continue to do small incremental rollouts of her positions, so she can build momentum. As it stands now she's really not that big of a deal. And it should stay that way if she wants to build up. A quite primary is the way to go.
She will of course come out against income inequality as she has already done so (on John Stewart's show, but no one was paying attention). Raising the minimum wage is a Democratic Party plank and uncontroversial. She supports it whether she has said so or not because to be a Democrat who supports the platform you must support it.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)unrelated issues.
msongs
(67,405 posts)of recent policy.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)She perfectly addressed the concerns & issues of interest to the Women in the World Summit.
That is what they represent.
Would like to find her entire speech if I can.
Hillary's words are a far opposite from the RW suppression of the female gender.
Woman's rights are human rights.
She has fought her entire adult life for this great cause.
Kudos to Hillary Clinton.
Beautiful!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)calimary
(81,238 posts)We span EVERY other demographic group there is: age, race, religion, marital status. Why aren't WE in charge? Why haven't we had a realistic shot at it til now? We've had 44 Presidents. They've ALL been men. Hell, even the monarchies of Europe had a woman leading things here and there. Isn't it time for a REAL change? I want ALL the ceilings broken. I'm glad it's happened for African Americans. I expect to see a Latino (or Latina?) in the Oval Office within my lifetime. Maybe a gay President too. I would guess that all the barriers will fall down eventually. Besides, there's too much of a farm team building locally/regionally in each demographic, too. But I think women deserve a shot.
Harry Reid, interviewed by Rachel Maddow, I believe, said that in all his years in the Senate, he found that the increasing number of women made a huge difference, all to the positive. Things were better with women participating. For many reasons, including the tendency to be less combative, less in-yer-face, more collegial and practical and "let's fix this already" or "this problem NEEDS to be solved." More got accomplished because there were more women playing active roles. He hoped to see the numbers of women in government increase.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)4now
(1,596 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)When entrenched patriarchy gets out of the way the entire world becomes reasonable.
^H^R^C
youceyec
(394 posts)!
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)When Hillary speaks about income inequality, all the Warrenistas shout, how about the 1%? When Hillary addresses the 1%, all the Warrenistas shout, how about global womens rights? When Hillary addresses global womens right, all the Warrenistas shout, how about wages for the middle class?
And on and on it goes . . .
If you dont like Hillary, thats fine by me. We need a good debate amongst us liberals. Were a big tent party, remember? But if you're unhappy with Hillary, try talking your chosen one into running for President. Worse yet, try voting Republican and see where that gets you!
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)A grifting corporate shill...Goldman Sachs, Larry Summers...will never take the steps necessary to help the people of America.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Response to 4now (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #39)
Renew Deal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Auggie
(31,169 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Pathetic and disturbing comment for a liberal website
JURY RESULTS
The review was completed at Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:39 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Different than the alerter - Obviously this poster has nothing to lose if a Republican gets into the White House. I'm sick of reading this shit at DU. That's why I'm hiding it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let me tell you what is a "Pathetic and disturbing comment for a liberal website." The fact that you think that everyone here has to fall into Hillary's camp. Seriously if you can't handle a fucking discussion on why Hillary shouldn't be President lock yourself in a room somewhere until the election is over so you don't get upset. Grow up. This is a discussion board where we discuss things.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. This is over-the-top and disruptive.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a valid voicing of this person's opinion. It is neither pathetic or disturbing, but this blatant attempt to silence debate is both. Leave the comment, it is perfectly appropriate.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: As I understand the TOS for DU, you're not supposed to just slag fellow Democrats without offering some sort of payoff in the form of a thoughtful comment, comparison, or other valuable insight. This post fails on all levels. While we're all big boys and girls and can take it, we should nevertheless uphold the TOS.