Why do Hillary bashers continually ignore policy?

[DanTex]

As Hillary has rolled out her policy platform, it's progressive across the board, for example:
Economic proposals that win the praises of the likes of Joe Stiglitz
Increasing minimum wage, raising taxes on wealthy
Union rights and the Employee Free Choice Act
Strong campaign finance reform proposals including overturning CU
Large investments in clean energy
Criminal justice reform, ending mass incarceration

And so on. Basically, it's impossible to be a rational human and then look at her policy platform and think it is Republican-lite. Most progressives, myself included (but also people like Paul Krugman), have celebrated this fact. After all, here we have the person who is by far the most likely Democratic candidate, and probably a small favorite to become the next president, standing for solid progressive principles and seeking to extend the transformational achievements of the Obama administration.

And yet there's still rampant Hillary-hate on the far left. What gives?

Well, the most common Hillary bashing strategy is to take some small point of disagreement (i.e. whether Glass-Steagall is actually necessary or whether efforts to rein in Wall Street are better spent somewhere else) and blow it up into some apocalyptic betrayal. The other big one is guilt by association: flash a picture of her at an event with Kissinger, or insist that the fact that 3.4% of her campaign donations came from bank employees means she's "owned" by Wall Street, and so on.

And, sure, these are easy games to play. There are enough policy details that, for any politician, you can find a few votes you don't like, a few issues where they've changed their minds, and so on. But it's also obviously dishonest, because she has clearly advocated a very progressive policy vision.

There's really no explanation for this other than personal animosity.

[HERVEPA]

1. Platform means crap. She has a long enough history in public life

and that's what she should be judged on, the good and the bad.
Same for Bernie and Martin and Sheldon and Jim.

[DanTex]

4. She does have a long history as a progressive, that's true, but I think that

her current platform is the best indication of where she would govern, what her presidential priorities would be, and so on.

[HERVEPA]

11. Current platform means shit, and she is progressive on many things and not so on others.

Platforms have a long history of meaning nothing.

[alc]

15. and that's where the trust factor really matters

If you trust her, then the current platform means a lot.

If you don't trust her, any current platform statements are meaningless and past actions and priorities are the only thing to go on.

[DonCoquixote]

43. what's so progressive

about war with Syria, or working for Wal-Mart? That the is long history that will not be swept under the rug.

[DanTex]

47. Like I said. Picking a few small issues and ignoring the bulk of her record and platform.

And even there, you're getting it wrong. She didn't go to war with Syria, she advocated for arming Syrian rebels, though Obama decided against that. That's a far cry from going to war, but of course this distinction is lost to Hillary bashers. As for her serving on the Wal-Mart board in the 80s...who cares?

[DonCoquixote]

66. ignoring the bulk

If you fed a dog a cyanide pill in with dog food, you would not go ahead and hear someone say "well, I fed him mostly dog food." Hillary is getting pressure to move right, so she is going to feel pressure to go left, so that when , after most of us have voted for her, she does not obey wall street when they give her orders to destroy us. And not, it is anything but a far cry from going to war, ask Putin, or even better, ask some of those rebel who did get arms, despite Obama not wanting it, who are using those same arms as members of Isis.

Stop trying to feed us a cyanide pill and taking credit because most of the meal is food.

[DanTex]

69. Pretending that something like Glass-Steagall is a "cyanide pill" is stupid.

And so is pretending that Syria or Libya would have turned out just great if we had only done something different.

[DonCoquixote]

78. so is

pretending getting involved would have turned out different, especially as we could have and should have stayed out of it.

[SouthernProgressive]

2. Hillary and O'Malley are the biggest agents of change we have....

and have outlined the most thorough policy proposals. Sanders doesn't need to because most of his support is based in emotion and fear. Policy isn't necessary to run a campaign in this manner. It's easier to just say he marched and pounded on a podium every now and then. I mean guns have never made it out of Vermont and into more urban areas. If policy doesn't exist one gets to be all and nothing at the same time.

[artislife]

13. Just like bombs never made it out of congress

and destroyed countries, homes, lives...

[upaloopa]

3. Well you got to get your hopes up somehow

if don't support Hillary. She is leading every Repub and Dem candidate. if I wasn't a Hillary supporter I'd need to make up shit about her too or else accept the reality of the most likely primary outcome.
The only way Hillary's opponents can win is to tear her down. That has to tell you something about her opponent's strengths.

If they didn't need to trash her they wouldn't be doing it.

[Barky Bark]

94. Except we aren't tearing her down - we're asking questions

on issues, especially when comparing and contrasting Bernie Sanders.

[Persondem]

95. Stick around a while .. I've seen some really crazy made up stuff

flung at HRC - rigged up 6 degrees of separation posters that show her "links" to KXL, lines from speeches taken out of context, donations to the Clinton Foundation talked about like they were campaign contributions, HRC blamed for NAFTA ... it's irrational.

Some Sanders supporters are asking good questions and being respectful, but some are way over the top.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. We're too busy examining the skin color of people at her events.

And worrying about how her supporters behave.

And complaining about being oppressed and persecuted.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. LOL!

Thank you! Best funny all day!

[Scootaloo]

6. Last time I saw someone spin this hard, they got owned by Bugs Bunny

[DanTex]

10. A good example of what I'm talking about. Ignoring policy, attacking me personally.

[Scootaloo]

14. No, DanTex, callong your argument spin is not a personal attack

[reformist2]

7. Glass Steagall repeal is NOT a minor issue. It's the biggest domestic policy change of the past 25 y

ears. It led to not one, but two wild and horrific economic busts (and probably a third bust, which appears to be starting), and the Clintons, sadly, were an integral part of that.

[DanTex]

18. Yes it did, and no, it did not lead to the financial crisis.

The banks that collapsed were pure investment banks. All that stuff Goldman Sachs did? They were a pure investment bank at the time. The underlying problems that led up to the collapse were also unrelated to Glass Steagall. There was a housing bubble, a lot of unregulated derivatives being created and traded, rating agencies being compromised and giving AAA to bad bonds, and so on.

The obsession with Glass-Steagall mostly stems from people not understanding the financial system. The main Glass-Steagall issue is banks using government-insured deposits for speculation, and this is largely addressed by Dodd Frank and the Volcker rule.

[ljm2002]

96. You say the housing bubble...

...was one of the underlying problems leading up to the collapse, rather than the repeal of Glass Steagall.

You have cause and effect turned around IMO. Financial deregulation, which allowed all those crazy derivatives based on bundled mortgages, is what drove the housing bubble in the first place. This resulted in perverse incentives that led to corruption in various areas of the financial industry, including the rating agencies, not to mention the lending banks who no longer needed to care about the long-term viability of the mortgages they sold, since they were just going to bundle them up and sell them to other financial institutions.

Whether Glass Steagall itself was technically a direct cause or not, it correctly symbolizes the core issue: the nature of the banking business was fundamentally altered due to deregulation, and that caused the financial meltdown of 2007-2008.

[Recursion]

97. And there you are: it's a symbol

I agree; it's a question of signalling more than policy (Warren has said this too). Not everybody cares as much about signalling, though.

[ljm2002]

98. But the core issue is...

...banking deregulation really is what caused the financial collapse. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one facet of banking deregulation. It is one of the things that helped to detach the financial industry from the actual reality of the things being dealt in.

I'm all for reinstating Glass-Steagall or something very much like it -- along with a lot more regulations for the industry, to reflect the realities of our financial system in this day and age of computers and high-speed trading and tranches.

[djean111]

8. She has pushed fracking, increasing H-1B visas, seems eager to put (others') boots on the

ground in the Middle East, the TPP.

The lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia bothers me. Especially when people have been actually under sniper fire, shot, and killed, in Bosnia. She tossed that off, when questioned, as proving she is human. Okay. So - when exactly, do we know when she is telling the truth?

Are you really saying that Bernie and Hillary are so alike that the only reason Bernie has supporters is because of personal animosity towards Hillary? Really? That, IMO, is delusional. Especially since HRC supporters have spent so much time telling us how Bernie is a gasp! Socialist! and a bigot. and a racist. Get yer stories straight, I would suggest.

I don't hate Hillary. I have no feeling for her personally. I just want Bernie, and not Hillary, or anyone else, to be my next president.

[artislife]

9. Good to see you back at it.

But it is kind of like Marvel movies, we can't remember which one was what one...

http://moviepilot.com/reviews/2015/05/03/it-s-a-marvel-movie-it-s-great-if-you-like-repetitive-2905587?lt_source=external,manual

The film has what every other Marvel films delivers. Nothing more though. It has the quirky and comedic dialog. It has the bright colors and fluid fight scenes. It has loud noise and spectacular explosions. Just like another film back in 2012...wait was that film called...wait don't tell me....don't tell me...oh yeah, 'The Avengers'.

This film delivers the same overall experience that the original Avengers did. The plot is slightly different, but most aspects of the original still apply.

[DanTex]

12. Yes, and good to see you still ignoring policy.

[artislife]

17. Le sigh

How's that for policy issues?

Woot, Jim McDermitt from my neck of the woods!

[DanTex]

21. Yes, dumb misleading images with checkmarks. That's pretty much the depth of "policy"

discussion from Hillary bashers. And, of course, nothing from her platform ever actually appears on those charts.

[artislife]

26. Aw...trying to make it easy for you

I just imagined that this is at least the tenth (and I am being MORE than generous) thread that is virtually the same OP that you write, that maybe all the answers that people have given hasn't made a dent.

This is it.

This is why most of us support Bernie Sanders.

It really is about actions and votes and moral compasses.

We don't care about what shite she is spouting now, we care what she has shown us. She is a war monger, she is backed by Wall street money, she doesn't go far enough to protect the environment, she stoops to dog whistle when she is backed into a corner.

She has nothing to offer me but empty words.

The density in here is thick as molasses.

[DanTex]

31. I still haven't seen much that suggests that any Hillary basher has even looked at her platform once

And the fact that instead of looking at policy issues in detail, people just go with some jpeg they googled up supports my assessment that they really don't care about policy after all.

[cascadiance]

48. So explain in detail why she is BETTER than Bernie on H-1B, H-2B "guest worker" programs...

... that push many Americans out of jobs and lets the wealthy get "indentured servants" in these programs to work for them on the cheap so that they can reward themselves more at Americans' (AND foreign workers' expense!).

Hillary earlier had a pretty clear statement in support of H-1B as shown here...

She avoids talking about this like she avoids talking about so many other programs that affect American workers' jobs like any comments on her current stance on H-1B, or whether she understands or supports the TPA/TPP, which she was "selling" to other countries as SOS earlier, and which many agree will hurt American workers a lot, or why would they even have that TAA amendment to help American workers put out of work being a part of the negotiations to get TPA passed earlier.

Bernie shows how he's against BOTH H-1B and H-2B guest worker programs here, and correctly calls them out for the exploitation of foreign workers at American workers' expense that they are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/

Note that even foreign workers that some supporters of H-1B say are beneficiaries don't like how these programs are run now that exploit them too.

Check out this report in the Bay Area on how even Indian workers working under H-1B visas don't like how they are treated under the "body shops" enabled by this program, and one of them is interviewed anonymously for this report.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html

And H-2B workers were treated even worse (as "prisoners" according to this story from then) and successfully took those hiring them and screwing them in the process to court and won after they were abused to work in slave labor jobs to rebuild the south after Katrina. Our money would have been better spent on helping local residents get a salary to clean up their own communities rather than exploiting cheap labor and holding their VISAs hostage, etc. the way it was done then. What is Hillary's position on H-2B? Not as clear as Bernie's was in the above linked story.

http://www.thenation.com/article/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison/

Now, are you going respond to what you categorize as "hillary bashing" with a jpeg yourself, or could perhaps you provide more depth like I have here to explain how Hillary is more on the side of Americans (AND foreign workers) with her policies than Bernie is!

Many others have responded the way I have here in depth on many issues that we are concerned about, and resent the label that we are just providing jpegs of "lists" of issues rather than looking at them more in depth. If you can't respond, should we conclude that you don't look at issues like this in depth too?

[artislife]

49. And by the numerous OPs and posts

I am quite sure that either you don't read the replies to queries or you don't understand them.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look toward the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colors because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. Uh, see answer above.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. Well the first answer is perfect, but I will tell you how I would say it in other words. The sky appears to be blue because it is the way the light reacts to our eyes. That information is then sent to our brain and it interprets it in such a way.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. It is true that the sky being blue depends on many factors. If someone is color blind, is their blue the same as the standardized definition of blue? And if that is established, how do they establish it?

Q Why is the sky blue?

A. I don't care what color the sky is. I care that the sky has oxygen and an ozone layer.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. REALLY?? Because God likes that color best. stomps off

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. I question your curiosity to why the sky is blue.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. It's blue just to mess with your mind.

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. In this dimension or the one you inhabit?

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. Asked and answered. Next.

[questionseverything]

59. we simply do not believe her "new and improved policy"

we have examined her record and do not agree with it....just because her new improved policy papers say she will NOW go in a different direction does not mean it is true

back when bill clinton did welfare reform, i certainly had misgivings, i thought it was way too harsh but i gave him the benefit of the doubt...i was wrong....and i will not make that mistake again

[randys1]

16. Raising taxes on the rich? How much? Hedge funds too?

I do wonder about the following:

...On a scale of 1-10 Bernie is 10 and Hillary is 7 and for comparison purposes Scott Walker is 1 and Jeb Bush 3...

for what? For economic change, reforming tax policy and dealing with rampant corruption on wall street, etc.

So, we can ALL Agree if we are intellectually honest, that Bernie is further to the left and more for straight up CHANGE in this area than anyone.

BUT, given Hillary is good on these issues, not great, but good, surely better than you know who, and Hillary is supported by so many colleagues and is seen NOT as a socialist (he is a Democratic Socialist and so am I , just making a point) and is more likely capable of getting something done, as opposed to being completely opposed no matter what, is she the better choice?

HOWEVER having said that, she is a Woman and GOP hate Women and many conservative Democrats would rather not deal with a Woman.

So maybe the exact opposite is true.

[DanTex]

20. Yes, capital gains taxes, and also closing the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers.

Sure, Bernie is further left, but that doesn't mean Hillary is not a progressive. And, yes, Hillary is more electable, and also probably more skilled in actually getting things done, though I admit with the GOP congress that's going to be a struggle no matter who is there.

[HooptieWagon]

27. What kind of progressive calls Henry Kissinger their bff?

All the years of Clinton triangulation, one thing has remained constant...their corporatism.

[DanTex]

33. Again with the Kissinger thing. I covered that in the OP.

[HooptieWagon]

35. No, you haven't explained how a real progressive can be bff with Kissinger.

Who is Hillary going to cozy up to next? Dick Cheney?

[AtomicKitten]

19. Why do Clinton supporters discount her record?

It's the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Her platform is the former, her record is the latter. She can say whatever she likes to blow smoke up voters' skirts, but it is her record that is the harbinger for what she will do.

[DanTex]

24. I don't. She's got a progressive record. She and Bernie voted the same way some 90%+ of the time.

A lot of what she's running on now was part of her 2008 platform, and were things she advocated for while in congress and also as first lady. Of course, it's not identical, because her platform is meant to deal with the condition of the nation in 2016, which is a good thing.

[artislife]

28. It's the ten percent that matters! nt

[DanTex]

32. That pretty much sums up my point. People ignore the bulk of her record and focus on a few minor

issues to paint a false picture.

[artislife]

50. If there are one hundred eggs

And both candidates will give you ninety but the other one will give one, two, three or more. Why settle for ninety?

[DanTex]

54. Now we're getting somewhere. Personally, I'm for Hillary because of electability.

Based on policy, I think there's a progressive case for any of them. For example, believe it or not, there are progressives who don't actually think going for single payer healthcare at this time is a good idea. What I don't think is defensible is insisting that Hillary is "Republican lite" simply because of those two or three extra eggs.

I'd be happy with either one as president, particularly since the limiting factor in either case is going to be Republicans in congress. But I don't see Bernie winning the General Election.

[artislife]

55. I quibble with your idea that Hillary is the better choice for electability

I choose not to live a faint hearted existence.

And I feel the mood of the nation is in step with this.

[DanTex]

56. Fair enough. Our assessments of the political climate and the electorate are different.

[cascadiance]

52. NO, they focus on issues that Korporate Media and Korporate politicians are paid to ignore!

Both in the amount of legislation that even gets proposed for issues that a majority of Americans care about but nothing gets done about, and in the absolute ABSENCE of discussion on issues like the TPA/TPP on Korporate Media that don't want to PO their owners and their advertisers by talking about something that most Americans would hate more if they knew more. And many Americans are using things like social media and attending Bernie's and other events (which is why they are so heavily attended) to find out what the Korporate power doesn't want them to know about, and try to minimize by saying these issues are only "10%" of the issues in congress or what is discussed in the media.

[AtomicKitten]

29. On matters of foreign/economic/environmental policy, she is no progressive.

IWR
Fracking
TPP
Keystone pipeline
Breaking up banks

[PoliticAverse]

34. "So Mrs. Lincoln, you enjoyed 90+% of the play?" n/t

[jeff47]

40. Her record is just a checkbox.

"Has she served sufficient time in a high government position?" "Check!".

What she actually did while in that position doesn't matter. All that matters is she filled in the box.

[HassleCat]

22. She does certain things

Clinton raises campaign money by being friendly with certain interests that might not be considered progressive. She gives what might be considered a hawkish speech at Brookings, etc. There are some things about her that make you think she's a progressive, and other things that make you think she's not. People get excited about this because they feel she might be describing herself as progressive when she has no intention of pushing a progressive agenda. There is no way to prove or disprove this accusation until she serves as president.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. It's a non-starter with the IWR vote.

Add to that her support for fracking, the TPP, the XL pipeline, prisons for profits, her warmongering and the MIC and we have game over. Sorry.

[ram2008]

30. Because policy needs to be viewed through the prism of her record and past statements

She may be ok with vague generalities, but when you get to the specifics her policy isn't that great.

Pro TPP
Pro Interventionism, gives neocon speeches at think tanks.
Pro Keystone XL
Refuses to address 99% vs 1% or rail against the excesses of Wall Street- opposes Glass Steagall

Voted for Iraq War, Voted for Patriot Act,

And she literally said this 3 days ago:

"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."

We don't want a moderate establishment candidate as President- especially when it seems like she would be to the right of President Obama.

[DanTex]

36. And her record and past statements are also strongly progressive.

You pick out a few (mostly misleading) instances of supposed third-way votes in order to paint a false picture. For example, yes, she has addressed income inequality, and has advocated for reining in Wall Street excesses. Glass-Steagall is a small part of that issue, but the far left has made it into a rallying cry mostly because they don't understand how the financial system works. The Keystone XL she has stated she doesn't want to second guess Obama while he's making this decision. "Pro-interventionism" is pretty much a meaningless term thrown at her by far left isolationists -- there's no indication that she wants to start some big war, and she in favor of the Iran deal, etc.

And so on. It's all just bumper stickers. Overall, she has a progressive record and a strong platform, which her bashers continually ignore.

[ram2008]

39. "A few" These are the most critical and crucial stances...

That separate real progressive from faux progressive third wayers.

[DanTex]

42. No they aren't. The only reason that Hillary bashers talk about them so much

is because they are the few instances they can find to try to paint her as a third-wayer. And, like I said, even those issues aren't black-and-white as you try and pretend they are.

I'm quite confident, for example, that if Hillary was in favor of Glass-Steagall, then nobody would care. Why? Because there are dozens, even hundreds of progressive policies that she does support and has supported, and everyone ignores that.

Or, for example, if Hillary Clinton hadn't been in favor of expanding H1-B visas, nobody would care about them. Unless, of course, Bernie wanted to end the program entirely, in which case Hillary would again be painted as a third-wayer. None of it is based on reason, it's just based on finding a few issues where Bernie is further to the left and then using that to bash Hillary.

[ram2008]

46. Why settle for half, when you can get the real deal with Bernie?

There doesn't seem to be an answer to that question except "electability." And the electability argument has pretty much been slowly torn to shreds over the past few weeks, so it doesn't leave us with anything.

[DanTex]

51. It's way more than half, which is my point.

I have no problem with people preferring Bernie or O'Malley or Biden. All of them bring a lot to the table. The thing I object to is the portrayal of Hillary as "third way" or "republican lite" when she is obviously not that, based on the policies she advocates and has advocated. Based on policy, I can understand a progressive supporting any of them.

For me personally, I'm for Hillary because of electability. The argument hasn't been "torn to shreds," just that like a lot of things, there's disagreement. Some people think that Bernie can change the stigma of the Socialist label, that he can overcome being outspent something like 10-1 by the GOP and Koch Brothers, and that this country is going to elect someone further left than has ever won a significant election outside of a few very blue states. To me, that's wishful thinking.

[cascadiance]

60. Electability is always held out as the "big reason" to vote for Hillary.

But as a "far left" Bernie supporter who has unique support on MANY issues are supported by a MAJORITY of AMERICANS on, I would contend that him being "less electable" than Hillary is just as much of a Corporate Media spread myth as the issues he supports only being supported by "far left" Americans, which basically is saying that a majority of Americans are "far left", which defies logic!

[DanTex]

64. Sure, people can disagree about electability. I just don't see Bernie being able to beat the GOP,

and I have what I think are very good reasons for it. First, the socialism label. Second, the fact that he will be hugely outspent. Third, the fact that he's further left than anyone who has won any major election in most of the country. As far as individual issues, yes, it's true that people support a lot of progressive issues, and yet for a long time now that hasn't translated into votes for progressive candidates. I don't see that changing overnight.

[cascadiance]

83. The last time we had conditions like we have now in terms of the economy was back when FDR ran...

Now people felt forced to vote for a "Hope and Change" candidate who was more nebulous about his corporatist leanings than Hillary was, *hoping* that he'd do something for them, and many of them are disappointed in what he wound up doing. That experience has many voters ANGRY and being a lot more *demanding* of candidates, their history and how they are clear or not clear on issues, which Bernie is a lot moreso than other Dems, and certainly than Republicans.

Socialism is a "label" and only goes so far with a very FRINGE set of voters. FDR had to even deal with communist candidates to his left when he ran too and arguably many of his policies with the New Deal were also SOCIALIST as things like SOCIAL Security are. People were upset then, and are upset now, and are willing to look at new things.

And compare Bernie vs. Trump (if he continues his lead and wins), versus Hillary vs. Trump:

Bernie:
- Trump's stances on being against TPA/TPP and H-1B are a wash with Sanders who stands for these things and has had legislative experience doing so to back it up, not just words. A lot of what many of the xenophobic right are voting on is them getting screwed by foreigners taking their jobs, which they blame the foreigners for more than the oligarchs that architect this screwing through free trade treaties, "guest labor" programs, and non-enforcement of illegal employer prosecution of those employing undocumented workers. I think Bernie gets more votes from independents and Republicans on these issues than Hillary does, even if the money wants it to go the other way.
- ALL voters HATE "crony capitalism" where third parties (mostly corporate entities and other 1%ers) are "buying votes" with corruption campaign money contributions to politicians. Many Tea Partiers are just as mad at Obama administration for lack of prosecution of banksters as we are, and many look at Bernie's stances a lot more favorable in terms of not being beholden to banksters or other corporate 1%er money. They see Trump also not being beholden to this money since he funds his own campaign, and likewise would be more attracted to Bernie than Hillary when they see less 1%er money influencing him than money influencing her.

Hillary:
- The media from Bill Clinton's days has always drummed up the "Hate the Clinton's" and "Hate Hillary" mantra with the right wing, which motivates many of them to come out and vote against her. Even if the Republican nominee disappoints some of the right wing base, they'd be more inclined to go out and vote for a Republican against Hillary, where they might stay home if Bernie's the nominee in that case, if they don't vote for him.
- Trump wins a big part of the "Perot vote" of 20% of the electorate with the stances on TPP and guest worker programs that Hillary is not on the right side of. This will lose her a lot of the independent voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie.

What significant issues have people WANT to vote for Hillary moreso than voting for Bernie in a general election? Electability is mentioned generally here, but what SPECIFICALLY is she better on that attracts more voters than Bernie would to her side?

[ram2008]

61. We're seeing more and more than money doesn't win

They say she's Republican lite because on the very, very important, crucial issues, she tends to side with the middle consensus. She is better on some issues "womens, children" but then again, most politicians are unless they're the Tea-Nuts. The issue that is central to this campaign is wealth inequality and the corporate hold on our political and economic system. People have decided, that Bernie would be most effective in addressing these issues because he has spoken passionately about them for years and his record matches his rhetoric.

You talk about Hillary and Electability and how money will decide the election, but Jeb has hundreds up millions of dollars and is at 5%, Perry had the largest funded Super PAC and had to drop out of the race. Trump, who has spent zero money, and Carson, who has nothing have surged to the top. Hillary has spent millions in Iowa and for what? To have her numbers drop even further to the point where she's 10 behind Bernie in Iowa. No one can win an election with 39% favorability (Clinton). Even Obama who has been President for 7 years is at 49-49 favorability. So far, Bernie's favorability is in the positive range as his NAME ID goes up, when it sinks into the negative range consistently then you may have a point, but right now there is no evidence of that happening.

This election will be about ideas and who can best grow their message. Bernie is bringing energy, new voters, and his message is cutting across the political spectrum. Hillary hasn't shown the ability to do that.

[DanTex]

67. I haven't really seen evidence of that.

In fact, part of the reason Dems have been losing seats is the flood of outside money from the right. It's possible that money means less in presidential primaries, but even there I suspect that the best funded candidates will rise to the top. I think Bush and Walker are probably the most likely GOP candidates. The thing is, whoever ends up running on the GOP side will have tons of money regardless of who it is, and if the Dem candidate can't keep up, that will be a problem.

You say that wealth inequality and the corporate hold are the central issues -- of course not everyone agrees with that. But even for those that do, those are issues where Hillary is strong. Campaign finance, her platform is as good as any. She's for raising the minimum wage, closing the hedge fund tax loophole, raising short-term capital gains taxes, reining in Wall Street, closing the gender gap, supporting union rights, Employee Free Choice Act, etc. In fact, all of the leading Dems are progressive when it comes to inequality issues.

[ram2008]

81. A fear based campaign won't work

Hillary tried that same line of attack (electability) against Obama and it didn't work. When more and more polls show her on the decline what rationale do people have to support her over Sanders -- or even Biden if he enters the race (he's the most electable). We can say "Oh think of all the money the Republicans will raise!" But I don't think that really affects peoples vote as much as voting for their ideals. Especially given how all the mainstream punditry and rules in politics have been thrown out the window this election cycle.

Bernie is by far better on the issues of inequality and getting rid of the corporate stranglehold on our country as far as record and rhetoric go, so there really isn't a valid reason for progressive to choose Hillary over him. If you are more moderate, as Hillary calls herself, then that would be a good reason.

[cascadiance]

85. Spending more money by both parties just has disgusted voters STAYING HOME!!

That is why we have such low ratings of favorability for congress in general and such low voter participation in our elections in recent years, and why LIBERAL issues like raising the minimum wage PASSES on statewide propositions in RED states in the same election where DINOcrats lose to Republicans because they can't speak to what the voters really want when they have corporatist controls of what they say and do.

[SheilaT]

108. I think it's the "Hillary is ELECTABLE" meme that most frightens me.

She's won exactly two elections in her life, and neither opponent was very strong.

Notice she was inevitable in 2008, and I keep on asking her supporters exactly why is it that she is not finishing up her second term at this point. Never get a really good answer there. They mostly walk away muttering.

But far more importantly, they don't get how very unelectable she really is. Her negatives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party, are distressingly high. And while I would certainly like to see a woman President in my lifetime, I doubt Hillary will be that woman. If she actually does get the nomination, don't even begin to think that millions of otherwise Republican-voting women will cross over to vote for her, because of some pent-up yearning for a woman President. No. What will happen instead is that all the troglodyte men out there who hate her and hate the very idea of a woman as President will vote to make sure she doesn't get in. Plus, a lot of women who are sufficiently conservative that they, too, don't cotton to the notion of a woman in any elected office, let alone such a high one, will likewise come out and vote against her.

Think of it this way (especially you women reading this) if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann were to get the Republican nominee, would you actually vote for her because you're so sincerely longing for a woman President? I didn't think so.

[cascadiance]

58. OK, ONE issue that she and both Obama support, which is TPA being passed...

... or at least in recent times she's avoided speaking out against like Bernie has.

Now, WHY would a DEMOCRAT vote for a bill that would give a potentially Republican government in 2016 a lot more unlimited unchecked power, that even those writing the constitution that this bill tries to work around would object to.

If we have a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses of congress in 2016, those who helped pass the TPA basically would allow the Republican Senate to classify just about every bill they put up for a vote in the Senate as a "trade bill" and remove any means of a Democratic minority to filibuster it, and would let them basically pass anything they want.

Now you classify that as just one "meaningless" issue that we shouldn't care about because Hillary avoided speaking about.

But it is a BIG issue that may screw the country in the future if we don't at least win one of those centers of power the next election, thanks to an issue that many Hillary supporters try to dismiss as not important enough for her to take a stance on now.

And damn it as an out of work tech employee that hasn't made what he made since back in the 90's when the introduction of H-1B Visa "body shops" have screwed many of us out of jobs and pushed us in to contract jobs and lower salaries since then, YES DAMMIT, we DO care, even if Hillary hadn't said something before she AVOIDS talking about such issues now!

Many others here are directly affected by other issues that Corporate America has had their way with and screws the American public with too.

There really is very limited need for something like H-1B and the number of foreign workers with skill sets that can't be found locally should be very small compared to what companies "claim" to be their need today in their quest for getting indentured servants for lower salaries to do for them temporarily with no salary negotiation, union, or voting rights that such workers have.

And to say that issues like "H-1B" and TPA are "far left" that only Bernie supporters care about IGNORES that Donald Trump is building a lot of his support by sharing Bernie's opinions against the TPA/TPP and H-1B too, which undoubtedly attracts many of the voters in Republican space (granted many may also be xenophobic too), that care when they are screwed out of jobs too and probably were part of the 20% that voted for Perot back in 1992 too on the same issues.

[DanTex]

62. According to google, Clinton came out against TPA this time around.

Asked whether she would have voted for TPA, she responded, "At this point, probably not because it's a process vote and I don't want to say it's the same as TPP." Clinton, who talked with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston for his show, "Ralston Reports,"also said, "Right now, I'm focused on making sure we get Trade Adjustment Assistance, and I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get Trade Adjustment Assistance."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-hillary-clinton-would-have-voted-against-trade-agreement-tpa/

So there's that. I agree that handing Republicans more power is bad, though I don't know how easy it is to just call every bill a "trade" bill to circumvent the filibuster. Surely there's some protection against that.

As far as the more substantive issue, which is TPP itself, though Hillary hasn't made a definitive statement that I am aware of, I would guess that she's probably in favor of it, as is Obama. I don't consider TPP to be a big deal, personally, I think that some people on the left make free trade agreements out to be much worse than they are. That doesn't mean I support TPP, if I had to take a position, I'd probably go along with Krugman who says he's slightly against it.


As far as H1-B, once we acknowledge that there is a legitimate need for them, then it just becomes a question of how many there should be. Apparently Hillary thinks that number is higher than what Bernie thinks. Or at least she did back in 2007 or whenever she said that.

Personally, I have no idea what the ideal number of H1-B visas is, but I find it hard to believe that the difference between the number Hillary wants and the number Bernie wants is hugely consequential. And I also find it hard to believe that people who attack Hillary over this have somehow crunched the numbers to determine for themselves what the optimal number of H1-Bs is before deciding that Bernie's number is the right one.

[cascadiance]

88. So turning over our court's constitutional authority to CORPORATE ISDS courts is not a "big deal"...

Do you REALLY think Americans of all stripes agree with that SURRENDERING OUR SOVEREIGNTY that the TPP puts in place. It takes the screwed up WTO from NAFTA and makes things even worse. And who knows what will come with future trade deals where this will be made even worse with no real means to stop them.

The number of H-1B visas should be in the NOISE level, and why she is saying we need more is because 1% corporate money is TELLING her they need more so that they can pay workers less and pay their stockholders and execs MORE at our expense and continue WIDENING our wealth gap that has already become too damn bad to have a health economy now!

You obviously don't work in the tech industry like I and many here do who have personally seen the abuse that is discussed here and have had it personally screw up our lives royally. To try and dismiss it is a DAMN INSULT to many of us here!

And the housing messes that were mentioned in that NBC link I posted above I personally observed in the apartment I lived right next to across the hall, when rents were being jacked up at the end of the dotcom bomb, when no one was buying housing at the top end of the scale, and housing was scarce on the low end of the scale. They put in a few H-1B families in to a 900 SQ Foot apartment that had one couple live in it before and one day the guy that hired them decided that he wanted the place to himself, so he kicked them out on the street so that he could take over the place himself. That and many other abuses I've seen myself are things things that many of us in the tech industry see every year. We wonder why kids don't spend TONS of money on a bachelor's degree in a tech field when so many companies don't want to adequately pay graduates in those careers if they even get jobs when they are going to H-1B employees, or many other contractor "place holder" jobs that many of us work at that we know will go away if they pass H-1B Visa expansion that people like Hillary and Schumer want along with Republicans like Hatch to get passed, that couldn't pass when the Immigration bill wasn't passed last term.

Not only is it too damn expensive for these kids to get tech degrees for the jobs and salaries they'd get, but many foreign workers like Indians have their bachelor's degrees FREE from their countries, and they mostly just have to invest in Master's degrees instead, which makes the imbalance in terms of who gets jobs even worse.

The outsourcing that happens more when they can't expand H-1B also sends more jobs overseas, shuts down factories here, and we don't even get temporary contract jobs while they are waiting for H-1B quota expansion to happen.

NAFTA screwed many Americans when it passed. TPP and many of the newer trade deals that will be passed over the next six years, UNLESS we get someone like Bernie for president in 2016 will be a LOT worse. And you know if Bernie looks strongly like he might win the election, that the corporate PTB will push even harder for trade agreements to get passed before the 2016 election while they can. I think that would help progressive Democrats get elected in 2016 that much more, if all of these passed trade agreements expose the Republicans more for the corporate shills they are to their voter base that probably likes more what Trump says about "free trade" than the HUGE support that Republicans gave to Obama to get the TPA passed. We could not only have a great president, but an even more progressive congress as a result of electing Bernie with the turnout that he'll generate in the election in many other races too.

[DonCoquixote]

44. "assad must go"

is a very clear statement by her.

[questionseverything]

65. yes and look at the misery caused in the ME

10s of thousands pouring into the EU daily

no more war mongers!

[ellisonz]

37. You just can't get some people to go in the deep end of the pool.

Like it or not, the Republicans aren't going away. I could give two shits about what a politician's promises, I want to know what they will do when it's compromise or get nothing. How do they respond when the going gets tough?

[mike_c]

38. her record of support for invading Iraq, for turning the U.S. into a surveilance state...

...her opposition to single payer health care, and her tacit support for the TPP and Keystone XL pipeline might have something to do with it. Her obvious coziness with Wall Street banks and the billionaire class probably contributes. I suppose she was likely the most progressive member of Walmart's board of directors. That's something.

I mean, Senator Clinton did or does those things and more. Is mentioning them "Hillary bashing?" Making stuff up to discredit her would be bashing for sure, but stating the truth? Does Senator Clinton want to hide from her past? Should we let her?

[DanTex]

41. Yes, you're doing what I said. Picking out a few issues where you don't like her

and ignoring the much larger totality of her platform. And even there, you're being grossly misleading.

For example, the IWR she has acknowledged was a mistake. The patriot act was a nearly unanimous vote. Single payer is never going to happen, so that's a silly litmus test -- when she ran in 2008 her health care plan was actually to the left of Obama's. TPP is way overblown by the far left -- sure, it's not ideal, and I would probably be weakly against it, but it's not some catastrophic thing like the far left makes it out to be. Keystone she's stated that she won't second-guess Obama while he's making the decision. The "coziness" with Wall Street is at worst a perception issue -- like I said 3.4% of her campaign money has come from bank employees. And so on.

Basically, taking a few issues, presenting them as black-or-white life-and-death issues, and ignoring the bulk of her platform and her record. Despite her "coziness" with billionaires, progressive economists have given her economic plans high praise. She's also gotten high marks from environmental groups for her record in congress, and she's proposing huge investments in renewable energy. She's got more unions supporting her than Bernie, and she was an original sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. And somehow despite being "owned" by Wall Street she's in favor of increasing short term capital gains taxes and closing the carried interest loophole that allows hedge fund managers to avoid income taxes.

But the Hillary bashers don't want to get past the bumper stickers.

[mike_c]

45. those aren't just "a few issues that I don't like..."

Some, like the Iraq War Resolution are deal breakers. That was not a "mistake." It was a crime against humanity. To diminish it's significance by equating it with "mistakes" doubles down on Senator Clinton's unfitness for office. Forgetting to turn the oven off is a mistake. Leaving your brief case at home is a mistake. Authorizing the deaths of a million innocent people is a crime against humanity.

Sure, Senator Clinton's campaign and her record are mixed bags, with some pretty good stuff among the absolutely awful stuff. But the awful stuff is still there. Refusing to talk about it is not the way to practice democracy, IMO, especially when some of those issues are pivotal to understanding the candidate's fitness for office. Dismissing her record with a statement such as "the patriot act was a nearly unanimous vote" ignores the reality that it was NOT unanimous, and that some senators had the courage and the foresight to say no. But frankly, the IWR is an absolute deal breaker for me. I think its supporters belong in court at The Hague, not in office in America.

[HooptieWagon]

91. +1000

Then there's her support for fracking, her support for TPP (which is goddam important imo), her support for Monsanto, her coziness with Wall St criminals, her association with anti-gay dangerous nut jobs The Family, and her friendship with Kissinger. Damn, that's just a few.

[Purveyor]

53. Because I can't believe a word that comes out of her mouth and current polling reflects that view

for many others too...

[PATRICK]

57. In general she would be good on policy

different perhaps than Obama in the choices and strength of tack. No this should not be ignored and should unite Democrats, not divide. In the past it was an issue how best a particular candidate could deliver on these progressive principles: by winning, a mandate and personal strength in getting laws through and a new Dem Congress elected(the most difficult and decisive effect, not often achieved and with a narrow window).

The bashing is directed mainly on the best candidate for the policy issue for which we have a golden spectrum of progressive benefit for the nation awhile the GOP is stuck in a collective ditch where you can't tell the personal muck from the policy mire.

The real source of rage is that mud still threatens to win out as itself the fate of America. Forget whitened sepulchers, the GOP has a gilded outhouse.

If Sanders wasn't so atypical a politician the normal politicizing of policy wouldn't give him as much a foothold although the times ALSO are critically atypical- if the voters are allowed a voice in the matter.

A personal plea to Clinton though. For the love of (insert Deity or Highest Value of choice here), no gratuitous praises for Kissinger Reagan or other nauseating villains. Attack who you want and stick to good policy by all means.

[morningfog]

63. She's given some fine proposals. Her history is lackluster though.

And, I, like so many others, simply don't trust her and what she says she will do or wants to do. And she's unelectable. She can't win a national election. She's a liability for the Dems. So, the policy proposals only get you so far.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Why does Hillary keep avoiding stating her policies and/or needs to evolve on policies?

[DanTex]

70. She has stated her policies. As she promised, she would roll out details as the campaign progressed

and she's done just that.

Why has she evolved on certain issues? Probably for the same reason Bernie no longer things that the state needs to own the major industries. The world in 2016 is not the same as it was in say the 90s or the 2000s. I've personally changed my views of certain things over the years, I can't think of anyone who hasn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. So, what's her policies on the TPP? Fracking? Breaking up banks? Raising taxes on the rich?

Among others.

[DanTex]

72. Don't know yet about the first two, for TPP it probably depends in what's in it,

whether there are enforceable labor and environmental standards. Fracking is not black-and-white, she hasn't to my knowledge committed to a specific set of regulations. As part of the Obama administration, she was for fracking in some cases as part of the push to replace dirty energy sources with natural gas. Breaking up banks she is not in favor of, though she is in favor of strengthening Dodd Frank to rein in Wall Street. Taxes on the rich, she's at the very least for raising short term capital gains and closing the carried interest loophole that lets hedge fund managers avoid income taxes.

[jkbRN]

73. Well,

when Princeton comes out with a study that says this:

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling on McCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."

Source:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

And Hillarys donors for 2016 are:

Morgan & Morgan $274,767
Sullivan & Cromwell $148,100
Akin, Gump et al $125,598
Yale University $95,434
Latham & Watkins $94,580
Morgan Stanley $90,799
Creative Artists Agency $88,501
Time Warner $87,835
University of California $80,754
JPMorgan Chase & Co $75,537
Munger, Tolles & Olson $72,850
DLA Piper $72,500
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett $69,550
Centene Corp $67,150
Skadden, Arps et al $62,650
Harvard University $61,080
Paul, Weiss et al $60,500
Wilmerhale Llp $59,250
Google Inc $58,021
Blackstone Group $57,700

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f


Leads me in the direction that her policy prescriptions really don't matter.

[DanTex]

75. Not sure what those have to do with each other. Does the Princeton study have anything to say

about campaign contributions from employees at law firms, universities, banks, media and tech companies?

The only relationship I see between that study and Hillary is that she is in favor of overturning Citizens United and tightening campaign finance laws in order to reverse that trend.

[jkbRN]

89. Really?

So in case you didn't know, law firms lobby for private corporations, you can find that information of you click on the link of the law firm on open secrets

For instance, Akin Gump et al who has donated $125,598 to her for the 2016 elections:

Attorneys at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld frequently argue before the United States Supreme Court, and the firm is active in organizing and filing amicus curiae briefs. Employees also are among the most powerful and well-known lobbyists in Washington D.C. In 2012, Akin Gump earned more than $31 million in lobbying income from hundreds of clients in a range of fields including real estate, energy, pharmaceuticals and many more.

More info:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000162

Lobbying performed by Akin Gump et al:

Client Amount
Gila River Indian Community $24,260,000
Mortgage Insurance Companies of America $10,870,000
PG&E Corp $9,990,000
Moody's Corp $9,790,000
AT&T $8,050,000
Florida Citrus Mutual $8,040,000
Dow Chemical $7,980,000
Cltn for 21st Century Patent Reform $7,900,000
Volkswagen AG $6,900,000
Liberty Mutual Insurance $6,740,000

Source: http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/akin-gump-et-al/105dcfc8c9384875a099af230dad9917

You really need to research this stuff, my friend--objectivity is key.

[Chan790]

74. For me, not ignoring policy...I think she's lying about actually doing any of it if elected. n/t

[DanTex]

76. That's a form of ignoring policy due to personal animosity.

[Chan790]

80. No, it's not.

Theory is not praxis.

One can be aware, informed and engaged as a voter and still not support your candidate because she's a documented liar who likely has no intention of implementing any of the policies she's marching out to attempt to draw support.

That's not animosity, it's being a realist.

[redstateblues]

90. Once again DanTex takes on the Hillary bashers

And comes out unscathed by making sense. In the real world outside of DU I don't think Bernie is electable in the GE.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. You chose to compliment the OP based on his logic in post 76?

hint: there's no logic in post 76. Dan has made a completely unsupportable claim, namely, that if someone believes Hillary is a liar, they are somehow ignoring her policies. That's what you chose to compliment. Well, all knowledge is good, and in this case, the knowledge I've gained lets me know that I should not attempt to sway you with logic. It would be of no use.

[HassleCat]

77. Because platforms have trap doors

The platforms of candidates and their political parties are subject to change. Issues and positions may be thrown overboard when a poll or focus group suggests voters no longer respond positively. Of course, people are free to say, "My candidate would never do that!" The fact remains, most candidates do exactly that, so claims to the effect that "...my candidate is an exception to the rule..." should be backed up by evidence.

[Android3.14]

79. It's okay DanTex

We'll be here for you when this dust-up passes.

[Truprogressive85]

82. Amazing

You stated HRC bashers play guilt by association - Was it not HRC back in 08' when the Jeremiah wright faux scandal broke out that said : "I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor" or " For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me"


Kissinger has inflicted more harm than Jeremiah Wright so people critiquing for her gleeful pic the the merchent of death is justified in my opinion

[DisgustipatedinCA]

84. I don't ignore her policy points. I just don't believe her.

[Thinkingabout]

86. On the issue of gun control Bernie voted against the Brady Bill.

He has voted with the NRA on other issues. We hear about gun violence everyday, guns have killed more Americans then the Iraq war has. Bernie also voted for the AUMF in 2001, he can say everyday about voting against the IWR but this was to provide Bush with guidelines on Iraq, in fact Bernie voted against the guidelines, not that Bush followed them but Bush had an open checkbook on invading Iraq, it was given with the AUMF 2001.

Hillary was on the campaign trail talking about voter suppression, wage inequality, taking back Bush tax cuts, gun control, enhancing Dodd Frank instead of restoring Glass Stegall since Glass Stegall would not have prevented all of the financial troubles. So many continues to repeat the same story and ignoring what positions are discussed so there you isn't worthwhile policies are ignored.

[ljm2002]

99. IWR vs. AUMF...

...the AUMF of 2001 authorized the use of military force against terrorists, and specifically those who were responsible for the atrocity of 9/11. The IWR of 2002 authorized the use of military force against Iraq, who as we know had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

Your characterizations of the IWR of being a resolution that gave GWB "guidelines on Iraq", and the AUMF as giving GWB "an open checkbook on invading Iraq" are ludicrous. The IWR addressed Iraq; the AUMF authorized military action only against those who planned or committed 9/11, or those who harbored said persons or groups. Iraq did not fit either of those criteria; ergo, the AUMF did not give GWB any authorization to invade Iraq. The IWR, on the other hand, did not make any reference to 9/11 in its justifications for invading Iraq -- it just listed several reasons for doing so based on Iraq being a dangerous country -- and many of the reasons cited were outright lies.

Although I tend to be antiwar in general, I don't have a problem with a vote that said we could attack those who attacked us. On the other hand, I do have a problem with a vote that said we could attack Iraq, who did not attack us and who did not have weapons of mass destruction.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Let's be straight here, it is a well known fact Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was elected.

The AUMF gave him open checkbook to invade Iraq, he lied about the reasons, with AUMF in place he could use military force. Again the IWR attempted to place rules on when could he invade, he claimed WMD's, the IWR said there needed to be the inspections completed for one item, what did Bush do, he had the inspectors removed because he knew it was a lie about the WMD's, without the IWR he could have and probably would have invaded without ANY inspections for the WMD's. At least the IWR attempted to place some restrictions, the AUMF did not. As you said, the AUMF gave Bush against those who planned or committed 9/11, Bush laid plans to show Iraq was in the planning, ergo, he was planning to invade Iraq with the claim this is where the planning, etc happened. Members of Congress wanted the inspections of the WMD's before the invasion occurred, the AUMF did not contain this information.

I don't like war, sometimes actions are needed but Iraq was Bush's plan before was even elected. The WMD was a lie to invade. Ludicrous, no, just facts.

[ljm2002]

104. Let's be straight here...

...the AUMF was about those who attacked us on 9/11. The IWR was about Iraq. The end.

[Thinkingabout]

105. Your opinion, I have a different one.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. End mass incarceration while swimming in private prison lobbyist bux. Right.

Bernie Sanders: "There is no question that the war on drugs has been a failure.”.

Is Hillary prepared to make that acknowledgment?

I wont hold my breath.

But THAT is how you "end mass incarceration"- you end the drug war. You dont rebrand it, throw more money at it, and try to sell it with the exact same rationales Nixon used 44 years ago.

[JackInGreen]

92. And rolled that platform over and over and over

It's a veritable spinning barrel of planks going round and round.

[AgingAmerican]

93. Projection

You sure do that a lot

[McCamy Taylor]

101. The same ones cite Sanders policy like it's carved in stone.

I was reading her platform last night. It is 100% progressive Democratic, even more so than Sanders.

The double standard as applied to Clinton is just mind boggling---and to my mind, suggests we really need a woman president. We are at least as sexist a country as we are a racist country---maybe more so, since no sane person will deny that racism exists but very many insist that women have it "ok."

[oasis]

102. Keep posting the good stuff on Hill. It's refreshing.

[Autumn]

106. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

She looks lovely in that blue pantsuit.

[mmonk]

107. Actually, it is policy plus past actions and positions. It is also

Wall Street interests in the executive branch. To say our problems with her aren't rooted in policy are false.