After watching Meet Press Clinton interview, I realized something

[Armstead]

This is not a Hillary bashing post. I donlt agree with her on some things, but I kinda like her --EXCEPT as a presidential candidate.

Having said that, watching the interview on Meet the Press brought into focus one of my main problems with her, and with that flavor of DLC/Third Way Democrat. And it goes way back, to the late 1970's.

When talking about issues, they always go to the soft and fluffy side of liberalism. Children, women, families. They want all Americans to have opportunity to play by the rules and get ahead...etc.

I'm in favor of that stuff too.

But that kind of happy talk, and micro-solutions, deflects from one of the core reasons families are getting screwed, wages have gone down as productivity has increased, and why opportunity and economic security are getting harder and harder to find.

A major problem IS the enormous and systemic and deliberate concentration of wealth and power that has occurred over the last 30 years. Through a combination of bad policies (trickle down supply-side CONservatism and neo -liberalism and "free trade" and deregulation and privatization) and natural unchecked economic forces -- mergers, monopolies, outsourcing, etc. we have regressed backwards towards the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The GOP actively encouraged this.

But the Third Way Democrats either encouraged it or FAILED to sound the alarm or take meaningful action to stop this from occurring as it was occurring. They failed to provide political or moral leadership to stop it, or maintain a balance between rapacious capitalism and the public interest.

Addressing the symptoms in the soft and limited terms that people like Clinton do is a deflection, that empowers corporations and Wall St. to continue with their bad behavior.

We have to address that, because it IS a core cause of our problems. We have to get collectively pissed as a nation, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

That's one reason Bernie is resonating with so many.

It really is simple in one sense. We have to say "Enough is Enough!" -- and we have to resolve to do better in a meaningful and conscious way, by restoring some semblance of true economic equity and political democracy.

[antigop]

1. OK, I'll say it: "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" nt

[rhett o rick]

87. Agree. The Third Way are conservatives that figured out that they were having a hard

time fleecing the 99% when they were anti-social justice issues. They figured out that if they would at least pretend to favor social justice, that that is all some pay attention to and they could continue to fleece the 99%. Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about same-sex marriage, LGBT issues, equal pay for women, college for our children, or a decent retirement for our seniors. They are a corporation and they only care about the bottom line. So they hire politicians that are willing to fool the public into thinking they are progressive, as shown by their social justice stands, but really conservative when it comes to supporting the goals of big corporations. I think it's a moral issue that people are willing to vote for the status quo and accept the 22% of American children living in poverty as well as the other problems the 99% is having.

[Armstead]

90. I don;t know if its "hire" or "bully" or a combination of both, but.....

you basically hit the nail on the head.

They kind of get a two-fer. If people are feeling socially conservative, they get in through the GOP. if the public is in a socially tolerant, liberal phase, then they get in with the "right kind" of Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

106. The worst part is that some are so focused on social justice they ignore the

elephant in the room, the growing wealth inequality. If we don't solve that problem, we will totally lose our democracy and without that, all social justice issues will be at the pleasure of the rulers.

[Armstead]

109. Personally I think they're one and the same ultimately.

People may have individual issues they believe are a priority -- whether minority rights, the environment, criminal justice, women's issues...whatever. And that will be a major focus and that;s fine.

However, I don't see where people have to believe that it is not possible to also address common areas of concern that effect everyone. It puzzles me.

[rhett o rick]

119. Exactly. Why not support a candidate that will work for social justice as well as economic justice?

One reason is that a lot of these people admire the wealthy and someday hope to be wealthy and therefore don't want to make them pay their fair share.

Another reason is that some Democrats secretly believe in the Trickle Down Theory.

But maybe most important is authoritarianism.

[Plucketeer]

126. Spot on! To all you've said here

I'm no great seer, but some years ago it dawned on me that what progress WE ARE making on social issues - while certainly important - is NOT the real meat of the change we held out hope for.

How's that old line go??? "Follow the Money"??? WHO is paying the way for these candidates? When you sort that out, you can discern who's gonna have our best interests at heart.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

134. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[Dustlawyer]

148. If we could get all of these supporters of their pet issues such as LGBT, environment, immigration,

Black Lives Matter, education, etc., to join and fight for Publicly Funded Elections (PFEs) it would help all of their causes and return us to Representative Democracy. The buying of our politicians by the corporate interests is what is holding up true progress!

Divided we have not been able to advance on most of the issues that concern the 99%. We are like the audience to a performance of the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals. They pretend to fight about the social issues that Wall Street couldn't give a crap about to keep us distracted and divided so as to not focus on the fact that they are ripping us off by controlling our government. Their media spews propaganda to try to keep us ill informed, afraid and angry about all of the wrong things.

Bernie is attacking their very control of our government in his fight for PFEs and that is the main reaso we should back him with all that we have!

[Enthusiast]

158. +1 a whole bunch!

[billhicks76]

153. Hillary Is In Bed With The Bush Family

That alone should make her no more than an afterthought. But some people are just too stubborn to realize a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush.

[Enthusiast]

103. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[The Green Manalishi]

162. Well said, EOM

[Motown_Johnny]

2. You may have pointed out one of Hillary's main disadvantages.

Because she can only go to those micro-solutions she is at a disadvantage against someone like Bernie who can still speak to those micro-solutions but who also addresses macro-solutions and ties them all together.


Enough Is Enough!

[Arugula Latte]

165. That's a good point, and a big part of why Hillary frustrates us.

She dithers on certain issues, changes direction when it's "safe." But she takes no grand stand against the general direction the country is headed (government by corporation). She basically seems okay with the status quo.

[haikugal]

3. Enough is Enough!!

We need real economic equity and political democracy, not just a semblance!

K&R!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Here, here! And Bernie will make sure we get real economic equality in this country. Hillary's banker friends and other Clinton Foundation donors should be worried.

Change is comin' baby!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[haikugal]

42. Sanders and Warren would be great

However I think we need Liz where she is. It's going to get worse before it gets better...we all have to step up because this is going to be a long fight and it's going to be down and dirty. We CAN do this, all of us 'minions' together. This is just the beginning...

Go Bernie!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. There will be a tidal wave of support for Bernie as President, but having Elizabeth on the ticket will greatly help in that effort.

[haikugal]

54. No doubt...I'm just not sure we can afford to lose her voice.

We need to get behind real progressives everywhere and get out the vote. Organize resistance to the third way crap and get back on track.

[senz]

120. Disagree. Not for the GE. There Bernie needs a younger, more "typical" VP.

And I agree that the Vice Presidency is not an active role; its greatest attraction is for politicians who would like to run for president someday. EW can accomplish much more as a Senator.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

111. Sanders-O'Malley might be good.

A younger progressive who might be able to extend the legacy, with a strong emphasis on the war on carbon.

[Armstead]

115. I could go for that.

[840high]

133. Yes we do.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Talk around the edges of truth, offer no specifics,

leave grounds for plausible deniability later on.

[They_Live]

15. That is a great way to put it.

thank you.

[Enthusiast]

105. You nailed that!

[beam me up scottie]

5. Another one out of the park, Armstead.

Enough is enough.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Great post.

In short, neo-liberals talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They may be Social Liberals, but something goes awry with their economic strategies. In the end, their marketing pitch may sound Liberal, but their methods and results are the same as the Republicans.

[AppalachianAmerican]

7. She makes a better private citizen than public servant.

She'll do good things in the private sector.

[cheapdate]

8. Very well put! I concur!

[jwirr]

9. Thank you. They are banking on the listener to put their own

interpretation on what they say. That makes their message meaningless and that is exactly what they want.

Enough is enough. Go Bernie.

[dsc]

10. I am glad that the rights of over half the population is fluff to you

[TM99]

17. But that is exactly the point.

It is not fluff to us. It is not fluff to Sanders. It is to the Neoliberals because they might talk about supporting women and children. But when they get down to the economic policies, they have proven to NOT support them.

All hat, no cattle!

[jeff47]

32. DLC-style Democrats don't help with that either.

DLC-style Democrats bargain away "women's issues" in order to look good for the Village. And they also happily amplify right-wing framing while doing so.

Abortion rights, for example, are under massive attack. What did Clinton do while in the Senate to expand access to abortion? Not just blocking anti-choice efforts.

Instead, DLC-style Democrats are talking about "fetal pain" and 20-week abortion bans, and maybe it's not so bad for abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals. Heck, they loved talking about "partial birth abortion".

"Hold the line" does not work. It results in constant chipping away. We need to be pushing for better, not giving away small pieces over and over and over and over.

[dsc]

39. during the period of time she was in the Senate nothing was accomplished in that regard

Bush was President with veto so Bernie did nothing either it should be noted. But if you look at the Clinton Administration he did quite a bit. Rescinded the gag rule, appointed justices that both kept Roe V Wade the law of the land and overturned a ban on partial birth abortion. He got the funds to planned parenthood that we are now arguing about.

[jeff47]

48. So is she Bill Clinton or not?

But if you look at the Clinton Administration

So is she Bill Clinton or not?

Because when we talk about welfare reform, three-strikes laws and repeal of banking regulations, we are lectured that Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.

But now that we're talking about abortion, Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton.

Btw, you managed to leave out all the Hyde-amendment-containing bills that Bill Clinton didn't have a problem signing.

Further, a bill during her time in the Senate does not have to pass to have an effect. The point is Democrats need to start with pushing for increased access, and then "settle" for status-quo. Not push for status-quo and settle for a slight loss. Over and over and over and over. The continuous stream of losses is how you can tell they don't actually want to keep the status-quo.

That includes proposing bills that will not pass.

[ish of the hammer]

118. nicely said....

one more thing.....
Who was Bill's Most Trusted Adviser then?
Who is Hillary's Most Trusted Adviser now?

"Hillary: Making sure women get a bigger piece of the middle-class pie that her neoliberal, DLC, pro-Wall Street, pro-Pentagon, pro-TPP, Republican-lite economic policies are designed to shrink."

Thanks to expatjourno

[Armstead]

53. It's not fluff -- It's central

Who the hell do you think funds the right wing GOP politicians who specialize in marginalizing LGBT rights, and women's rights aand voting right, etc.

And if you want to talk about rights, how about the right to a FUCKING MEAL and PLACE TO LIVE and HEALTHCARE and affordable childcare and all the rest of the necessities of life, as well as the opportunity for a decent quality of life.

That division between "economic" and "social" issues and rights is one of the reasons for the mess we've fallen into on all levels.

[roguevalley]

125. I work two hours a day at U-Haul mostly to walk but I'm not too proud to take my peanuts

a day. It rather is like tending a graveyard, a quiet place with little traffic.

A homeless lady keeps her stuff there and I told her how to sneak in and sleep there all night rather than out IN THE FREEZING COLD OR THE POURING RAIN! FUCK THIS SHIT! WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ARE WE?! She is old, ill and feels crushed. I don't expect Hillary to get it but Bernie does and he will turn it around. That is why I am voting for him. I am sick of pretty words from the Clintons and then NAFTA and TPP for real.

[Duppers]

147. And that point was made over and over

Here on DU during the discussions of the demonstrations, which was often characterized as riots, in Baltimore. And probably by many Hillary supporters too. Cognitive dissonance at work?

Great thread Armstead.

[sibelian]

55. Yes, yes, yes... of course you posted that.

What else would you do?

[Indepatriot]

11. CLINTON = WALL STREET ...... SANDERS = MAIN STREET

[hootinholler]

12. We are feeling the Bern because

We've been feeling the BURN for 40 years.

ENOUGH IS FUCKING ENOUGH

You can feel the tectonics. The sleeping masses are waking up. It's gonna be a Bernami.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

135. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[whereisjustice]

13. "But the Third Way Democrats either encouraged it" - Hillary doesn't want you to know that she

Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:11 PM - Edit history (2)

was a principal architect for the 3rd way right wing policies that continue to transfer wealth from the lower classes to the 1%. She was right there in the middle of it.

At this time, the Democratic Party is being carried along on the tired backs of their hopeful supporters. And we are getting fewer and fewer benefits in return. And when we protest the outrageous arrogance of a Clinton and DNC, we are treated like heretics.

Corporate ideologues and technocrats have taken control of the Democratic Party, sucked out every meaningful principal of good government and replaced them with a financial driven business model for the personal profit of their rich benefactors.

There should be active protest against these policies and the deliberate attempt by the DNC to make sure the rich are taken care of above all the other necessities to maintain a good quality of life in America - health, education, housing, employment and some time to enjoy life outside the framework of a corporate sponsored government..

[haikugal]

26. Very well said and I totally agree!

[Enthusiast]

108. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch! Wow! Well said!

[stillwaiting]

14. Very well said. I agree with you. nt

[onecaliberal]

16. When I think about this statement.

When talking about issues, they always go to the soft and fluffy side of liberalism. Children, women, families. They want all Americans to have opportunity to play by the rules and get ahead...etc.


I don't really think they want all Americans to get ahead. First question to ask when hearing that is, then why are ALL the rules and laws drawn to protect only the 1%. By their very own demonstrations the reps are existing solely to protect monied interests and their grip on power. They have taken over and corrupted nearly every facet of our lives. I hope it's not to late to turn the tide.

[Live and Learn]

18. I think the system is going to need big changes in the future.

Productivity will keep rising and jobs will become fewer as technical innovations replace workers. This should translate in to people working less hours which is nice but only if they can still make livable wages. As it is now all productivity gains go to the top. This needs to change.

In addition, climate change is already occurring and is the biggest problem we face. And let's not forget our ridiculously high and inhumane incarceration rate that makes a mockery of our 'free' society meme.

We need someone that will address these problems head on. There is no time for waffling. It is going to take a courageous individual and I think that is Bernie Sanders.

[Island Deac]

19. I Think I Will

now leave Bernie Underground until we have chosen a nominee. This has totally gotten out of hand.

[Ed Suspicious]

23. You've got that right! Third way economic policy has gotten totally out of hand.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. yup yup...I'm sick of the Third Way. There's only ONE way...Bernie's way or the highway!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Armstead]

58. Well after 56 posts, I guess it's just not comfortable for you

Okay. Maybe instead of heading for the hills you could explain where what I said is wrong.

[chervilant]

76. Are you stomping your feet?

Leaving in a huff?

I think you could better use that energy to explore the resources used by those of us who are deeply concerned about the radical income inequity that's destroying our global economy, and the parts played by pols like HRC -- really, WHO is benefiting most with HRC, who?

Leaving "until we have chosen a nominee" isn't going to help recover our democracy.

[elehhhhna]

137. Buh bye

[rhett o rick]

150. Yes you are correct. And it's way passed time to get "out of hand". For 40 years the conservative

Republicons and Democrats have been fleecing the 99%. I am guessing you choose the 1% over the 99%. Why? Because you worship the wealthy? You want someone to take care of you? Help me out, which is it?

[highprincipleswork]

20. Areed - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and just another form of "trickle-down"

Clearly, enough is enough, and has been for a long time.

The tepid efforts by Third Way Dems to staunch the flow of money into politics and the flow of our jobs overseas and to protect the flow of money into the pockets of the majority of Americans is absolutely another kind of "trickle-down economics".

It trickles, it brings us down. It walks like a duck, so I'm calling it a duck.

I don't know about you, but whenever I heard those terms I know I am in for another pissing on by a power that seems greater than me.

The great thing about Bernie's campaign is that we have a chance to unite around the right policies and moreover the right ideas, which have so lacking for so long that to most of the world (and certainly to many of us) we are running a government that is largely insane.

Go Bernie! And Go All of Us. Only united can we do this together, and as Bernie says, united there is nothing that we can't do.

[Enthusiast]

110. +100%!

[dorkzilla]

21. Very, very well put!

Enough is enough indeed. We NEED to get out of this mess, and electing Bernie is a good first start.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. Is that you Joe Biden? haha...thanks for the support!

[Cleita]

24. Can't recommend this enough. Thanks Armstead. You articulated what is wrong

in not only our country but our party.

[Gmak]

25. Could not agree more

too much talk and no real prescriptions for making the changes in our system that have to be made. Enough is Enough, for sure.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. But you have to realize, these are major changes that have taken time. But, I agree with everyone here...the time is NOW!!

Enough is enough!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Vinca]

27. I agree completely.

[leftofcool]

28. Yea, women's right, gay rights, children all fluffy happy talk

At least we know where you stand.

[AgingAmerican]

31. They want to talk about 'safe' things

Instead of the economy, voting rights, unions, etc.

[dsc]

41. safe things

safe things. 17, count it 17 transgender women were murdered last year. Gays are still the single group most likely to be victims of hate crimes. Abortion rights are vanishing in whole parts of the country. Blacks are murdered by police on a near daily basis and you have the gall to call this safe things.

[Armstead]

65. NO ONE is saying ignore those things

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time

[Enthusiast]

112. +1! "It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time."

[Fast Walker 52]

44. that's not the point. Where is her passion? Where is her anger at the outrages of the Bush years?

or the Reagan years? Or what the rethugs did to Obama?

[leftofcool]

51. Looks like that is exactly the point.

[haikugal]

56. Only if you're into false equivalence.

Which it appears you are.

[Armstead]

67. Its the point....... if you want to close one eye and turn your head halfway

[saidsimplesimon]

159. Excellent thread and discussion, thank you

"Its the point....... if you want to close one eye and turn your head halfway"
You have a Jon Stewart sense of humor.

If Democrats are retain the White House, we need a candidate who can GOTV.

[sibelian]

60. No. Fluffy happy talk is where HILLARY stands.

It doesn't work, ok? There's no point wittering on about how posters here are disinterested in gay rights when we already know you support a candidate that had to wait until everybody else said it was significant before she did the right thing.



It's just hypocrisy. No-one's ever going to be fooled because the rest of us AREN'T hypocrites.

[leftofcool]

77. And you just doubled down on your statement.

[sibelian]

79. Which statement would that be?

Do you have one in mind or are we dealing yet again with your self-professed disinterest in reading?

[Armstead]

63. Why donlt you try reading the full OP?

It's not very long ya know, especially the sentence immediately after that which says I agree with all of that.

My point was not that it is "fluff." But when disconnected from the basic CAUSES of those problems, statements in support of it are like putting a band aid on a burst artery.

[leftofcool]

78. You still don't get it do you?

[sibelian]

80. Feel free to explain "it".

Try making a case for your position.

[Armstead]

82. Why don't you explain "it" to me?

I'm willing to listen.

[Armstead]

107. Make a deal with you.

You explain "it" to me and I promise I will behave myself, and either give you a reasonable response or just say I agree to disagree.

I really want to know why you don't think that it is appropriate to address the core problem of the immense concentration of wealth into few and fewer hands at the top, and the accumulation of power by a handful of massive monopolistic corporations.

Or maybe you think that is a misinterpretation of the state of the country today.

Please explain "it" and I really do promise to behave.

[rhett o rick]

113. Do you really think the Oligarchy (like Goldman-Sachs) cares about women's rights,

gay rights, and the 22% of American children living in poverty? They buy candidates that will say they are interested but continue the economic fleecing of the 99%. Once we are paupers we will have zero leverage to force reforms for social justice issues.

Those children living in poverty need change to our current government system that is dominated by wealth. It's a moral issue.

[roguevalley]

127. I am always amazed how one dimensional this kind of response is.

[tooeyeten]

29. If

Bernie advances to a nomination, America will elect a Republican worse than the last Republican POTUS. That's way scarier than Clinton as POTUS.

[jeff47]

35. Here, lemme help translate your post.

Fear fear fear fear, fear fear. Fear fear fear. Fear fear, fear fear fear fear. Fear. Fear fear. Fear fear fear fear. FEAR!

[tooeyeten]

93. LOL

Sorry, you got riled. No translating required, I'm a realist understanding American politics.

[roguevalley]

128. you're just another person with an opinion and a position. If you have no crystal ball, your

'realism' is just your opinion. Nothing more or less. But please continue.

[pinebox]

36. Hardly

If anything, a Hillary nomination would ensure the entire GOP base shows up at the polls because they flat out hate her. They'd be voting to make 100% sure she is not POTUS. As a result, Hillary would lose the election.

Sanders on the other hand is actually gaining the support of Republican voters along with Indy's. That is something Hillary will never be able to do.

[Fast Walker 52]

45. I agree that Hillary is a much easier target for the GOP than Bernie

[tooeyeten]

94. Factually

We'll have a repeat of the last 2 Democratic wins w/Obama!

[Old Crow]

59. I think the surest way to guarantee a Republican in the White House...

... is to put Hillary Clinton up as nominee. In my lifetime, I have never seen an individual attract as much animosity as Hillary Clinton.

[CanadaexPat]

73. I agree...and she's just a lousy candidate.

Obama had a lot of stuff thrown at him but he managed to simply deflect it. Clinton just doesn't have the skill and retreats to the martyr defense.

[eridani]

154. I don't think that's accurate. I think the problem is that she defends like a lawyer instead--

--of like a politician. The RW has been throwing fake garbage at the Clintons since Bill was elected. A strong political defense would have thrown their crap right back at them. The lawyerly hedging defense was just inadequate--and still is.

[tooeyeten]

172. Potential for female POTUS and

She's a true Democrat advocating for women, families, impacting for decades to come scares the crap out of Republican base and establishment. Kochs & right wing conspiracy (Breitbart!)will pay whatever it takes to discredit her however it was easier in 90s w/o social media! Not so much today!!

[tooeyeten]

95. Obama

Has had as much or more in a very brief political lifetime. Th GOP is on tap to a Romney like, same platform repeat of the last nomination, Hillary likely will win if nominated.

[Old Crow]

98. You make a really good point...

... about Obama. Not sure how I missed that one.

For the sake of discussion, I'll say this though: The people that rabidly hate on Obama seem to come from a very narrow segment of our society (the racists and the anti-goverment far right); people outside of that demographic are pretty much agreed that Obama has a great personality. Hillary, alas, doesn't have the charm Obama does. So you've got conservatives hating her, but also a lot of middle-of-the-road people, and even liberals, who just don't like her.

I'm really not sure what's going to happen this election. There are so many variables in play. On the one hand, you've had two terms of a Democratic president, which inclines the pendulum so swing Republican. On the other hand, the Republican candidates are a veritable clown car, and have offended so many segments of the population (persons of color, women, gays, etc.) that it's hard to see any of them succeeding.

[7962]

142. I dont think the GOP will pick anyone who can beat Hillary, Bernie, or O'Malley. Or webb

Theyre too stupid to pick the guy who would get the most non-republican votes

[tooeyeten]

171. You're right

GOP is again fighting the infamous culture wars! We're good.

[Geronimoe]

30. Hillary equals the establishment and status quo

How has that worked out for you? More of the same or something different?

[Fast Walker 52]

46. exactamundo

[noiretextatique]

140. i have yet to recover from Bushco

I don't know anyone who has. Not working too well.

[cer7711]

33. That's it, in a nutshell.

Well said. And sadly, true.

[pinebox]

34. Great points!

What turns me off about her is that her entire career has been marred in one controversy after another. Honestly, how many passes does someone get?

There's a really great article over on Politico about her interview on Meet The Press.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-emails-conspiracy-theory-214114

A seemingly frustrated Hillary Clinton strove on Sunday to link the latest flap over her personal email server with the string of scandals and attacks Republicans raised against her in the 1990s.
“During the ’90s, I was subjected to the same kind of barrage,” the former first lady said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” noting that New York voters elected her a senator despite the attacks.
Story Continued Below
“When I ran for the Senate, they overlooked all of that,” the former secretary of state and front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination continued. “I was elected senator after going through years of back and forth.”
After a series of questions from host Chuck Todd about her emails, including a new charge that a recently released email exchange with former CIA director and retired Gen. David Petraeus occurred earlier than she acknowledged using her personal account, an exasperated-sounding Clinton asked Todd whether his next question would be about “another conspiracy theory.”


She rejected the notion that her decision to use a personal email server as secretary of state was meant to evade public records searches, noting that congressional investigators unearthed many of her emails before she released them because they were obtainable through public systems. She acknowledged, however, the “drip, drip, drip” of accusations leveled at her, but couldn’t guarantee when they would stop.
“There’s only so much I can control,” Clinton said, characterizing her responses as entailing “more transparency and more information than anybody I’m aware of that’s ever served in the government.”
She used a personal email server, she said, because her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had set it up in their house after leaving office.
Clinton also defended herself on Sunday from charges that she’s altered her positions on issues like same-sex marriage, the Iraq War and the Keystone XL pipeline out of political expedience.


“I just don’t think that reflects … my assessment of issues, and I don’t think it reflects how people who are thoughtful actually conduct their lives,” she said, suggesting she takes positions based on the information available to her at the time.

I am getting really sick of her mentality personally and her "entitlement" that she should be POTUS because she "deserves to be" and I am far from alone in that sentiment. America is getting sick and tired of her and now it's coming from the left too.

Remember this from 2007? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

Sorry, enough is enough with Hillary.
Ding! Done!

[Hortensis]

47. Your analysis is wrong because it lacks perspective and context. We're in a

transition era moving away from the over 35 years of profound conservatism that swept this nation in the late 1970s. All of today's "soft and fluffy" Democrats operated in a very hostile environment through their entire careers. If they did not compromise their positions, they would have accomplished nothing.

Weaklings and quitters gave up and went home. Others were thrown out. The people who stayed, whom you imagine as soft, are actually very tough.

As even moderate liberal progressives, they would have made very different decisions had they the luxury of serving during the progressive New Deal era that ended around 1980.

They will be able to make very different decisions and accomplish a great deal more as we continue into this new era of a liberal progressivism.

[Fumesucker]

57. Day 293 of America Held Hostage

I watched that crap back in 1979 and I thought then something was not quite right. Fast forward a couple of decades and I get connected online and find out the Reagan campaign conspired with the Iranian hostage takers to delay their release until Reagan was sworn in.

[Hortensis]

64. Oh, yeah. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, some really nasty plays.

[haikugal]

75. They sound the same now as then....

[Armstead]

81. I disagree with your assessment

To put it simply -- the environment was only hostile because the DLC types allowed it to get hostile. They echoed the GOP CONservaatuve message and policies. (remember their enthusiastic embrace of Alan Greenspan?) They helped to create the illustration that totally unrestrained Corporate Capitalism would deliver us into the Promised Land. They helped the GOP paper over the mounting crisis below the "unending boom" of the 90's.

They thought they were being "pragmatic" but in fact they were echoing the lies and CON Jobs of the GOP, and thus helping to make the environment hostile for liberalism/progressive populism.

I could cite numeous examples, but I haven't got the time. Suffice it to say Bill Clinton and the 3rd Wayers helped the GOP user in truely corrosive levels of deregulation, privatization, the accumulation of monopolistic corporate power and Wall St. crime. (One example, deregulation of the broadcast industry. Many othes.)

Instead, before his, er sexual indiscretion, Bill Clinton, for example, could have stuck to his guns on many issues, and advanced a progressive (liberal, whatever you want to call it) agenda. He basically won because he came across as a fightin g progressibe Democrat.....Even with a hostile GOP Congress, if he ha used his skills and charisma, he could have rallied public support and addessed the issues that were brewing back then.

Okay the past is the past. BUT THEY'RE STILL DOING IT.....Including their efforts to marginalize Sanders as "too far left socialist" when he is basically just trying to restore some balance. That's the problem.

In case you haven;t seen it -- THIS is what the Democrats should have been recognizing in the 90's and early 00's.

[Hortensis]

91. Armstead, you can ignore history, but virtually the ENTIRE PLANET

shifted right during that era. The United States was part of a giant wave of reaction against too much change, abetted by Big Money's wishes to dismantle protections that cut into their profit margins and to avoid the juggernaut change protection from global warming required. Religious fundamentalism boomed.

Advertising techniques developed in the 60s and 70s were used to convince a hundred million people in this country alone that
* strong-to-extreme conservatism was actually moderate "family-values" moral conservatism,
* there was no such thing as extreme conservatism, and, notably,
* there was no such thing as moderate liberalism -- everyone to the left of far right were "radical-extremist-liberals" whose policies were destroying the country. That included moderate conservatives.

And in that way, a natural wave of reaction was maneuvered into a profound shift to the right by Big Money and the religious right.

It was interesting to watch how the especially vicious, bigoted right-wing factions were able to hide themselves in the "family values" mantra. To hear the mainstream press tell it, you'd think they'd all been reborn as decent, moral people. Yes, the entire MSM stopped reporting racist, ethnic, religious, and political attacks by the extreme right and described everything in terms of "morals voters." For a decade, or even more, my husband and I would see a RARE report of a hate crime, but it was never described as that, and we'd think, "Boy, if we didn't know they were all reborn as worthy, moral Christians dedicated to family values, that'd look like a hate crime."

THIS is only a partial description of the hostile, stacked environment in which Hillary Clinton and the other survivors operated. Not to mention, our minority populations. And, yes, although not all of these battle-scarred politicians would reflect my ideology completely in any era, I do admire them for continuing to fight for liberal, progressive values and to save what they could of what our parents built.

[Armstead]

96. I lived through it and I paid attention too. They helped to CREATE that environment

I'm 63 and I started paying attention in the early 70's, and observed the evolution close up.

I know about how difficult times were in the 1970's, and how "liberals" got blamed for it. And the emergence of the whole "greed is good" set of morals.

And I know all about the GOP right wing messaging and the corporate double talk. "We're forming a monopoly to protect competition." and "We're laying off thousands of people to protect jobs" and all the rest of it. And "We have to ship American jobs overseas so we can protect America's place in the global economy." And "Lower the taxes of millionaires because you too might be rich someday."

And the crap about Welfare Queens being the cause of the debt and deficit. And "Jesus wants you to be a a wealthy businessman."

But what I also DIDN'T see was a Democratic Party that was willing to fight back against that and represent the Truth. Or expose the basic nature of those lies.

Just the opposite. The DLC. helped to demonize economic liberalism. They were effusively saying "The Era of Big Government is Over" and praising Alan Greenspan,(an acolyte of Ayn Rand fer chrikeys sake).

I should emphasize not the entire Democratic Party. But those who tried to restore some true balance were dismissed by Democratic DLCers as "too far left."

That right wing movement and the hollowing put of the economy for the middle and lower classes and the selling out of government was AVOIDABLE. And it can be turned around now. But not if we keep repeating the same old stuff.

[Hortensis]

97. Armstead, they spoke out. Loudly. But America was tired of them.

And worried. Leftward ideology and technology had brought too much change too fast for comfort. Time to retrench, and big fuzzy Papa Reagan offered a warm, protective lap to retreat to.

[Armstead]

102. Maybe during the 80's there was sort of an excuse

But not once the nation had a chance to rest and regroup.

And especially not as the impacts of right wing corporatism were becoming more evident in the real lives of many people, as in the cities across the country that were decimated by results of corporate greed in the 80's and 90's. The patterns were there and people felt it, but the Clintons and DLCers were right there with the GOP in selling the Emperor's New Clothes -- instead of offering reasonable alternatives.

(We're probably not going to agree on this -- but I do appreciate your willingness to discuss in a reasonable way.)

[Utopian Leftist]

124. You are so right on that.

Here's an interesting thought: what if it was Bill Clinton's failure to stand up for Progressive ideals which was the real reason Al Gore failed to become President in 2000?

With the possible exception of environmental concerns, Al Gore would likely have continued the Third Way, DLC economic hijacking of the country. Just as Shrub and Obama did.

So the people rose up and said, "HELL, if you're going to give us no viable progressive candidates for President, we'll stay home and let the Republicans back in office." Exactly what happened, in 2000, and what could conceivably happen this year if we choose Third-Way Hillary as our nominee.

When faced with TWO Republicans in one election, the people will choose the Republican who has the guts to admit that he or she is a Republican. Third-Way is Democrat in name only.

[roguevalley]

129. frankly, being old and watching it all, I would say that the reason dems got slagged is because

they were cowards, go along to get along, do the easy thing because the money was good and they weren't being ripped up by the other fuckers if they did. Cowardice got us this way. YOU FIGHT EVEN IF YOU LOSE! You make them bleed even if hey win. You make it fucking harder for them to COME AT YOU AGAIN WITHOUT LOSING BODY PARTS! Everyone respects a fighter. Hence, Bernie. That is how it should have been and that is how it is now but the FIGHTERS ARE THE PUKES!

[haikugal]

138. You're right about fighters...win or lose you fight back, fight for what is right...fight for the

better idea, fight for all the people.

Bernie stands and fights and we will too. What do we have to lose! Wasn't it that skank Rahm Emanuel who totally dissed us with "what are you going to do?" There's plenty we can do.

I don't see the pukes as fighters. I don't see the third way dems as fighters. I see them as bullies and they've gotten away with it long enough.

Enough is enough!

[Fast Walker 52]

50. I want to see that she is angry about something, some sense of outrage

I just never get that from her. And I totally agree with the OP-- she always plays it super safe in these interviews.

[roguevalley]

130. she lost her shit when Obama wouldn't accept her apology.

[Fast Walker 52]

141. what apology?

[merrily]

52. It takes a village to divert Americans' attention from vast wealth inequality. nt

[whereisjustice]

66. lol, or as I like to say, Hillary is ready to help Wall Street take our villages :-)

[merrily]

71. All your base are belong to her!

[whereisjustice]

74. :-) :-) :-) :-)

[artislife]

83. ^^ this nt

[noiretextatique]

139. it takes a village to prop up corporations

[JDPriestly]

61. K&R.

[raindaddy]

62. The Clinton's have become very rich supporting the very economy that's destroying the middle class.

And you're 100% right, don't believe the happy talk. Hillary is not going to address a system that supports her.

[whereisjustice]

72. Wait... she WILL address the system. For a $250,000 speaking fee.

[Javaman]

68. When you are beholden to the corporations for your donations...

you can only talk in euphemisms and deal only in micromanagement, because if you deal in micromanagement, you piss of the very people who feed your campaign.

that is, in a nutshell Hillary's problem.

Sanders has no such problem, he's beholden to no corporation.

So do you want a candidate that has to censor oneself instead of expressing the reality? or do you want a candidate that can express oneself and doesn't have to censor ones comments?

The choice is yours.

I choose Bernie.

[Javaman]

68. When you are beholden to the corporations for your donations...

you can only talk in euphemisms and deal only in micromanagement, because if you deal in micromanagement, you piss of the very people who feed your campaign.

that is, in a nutshell Hillary's problem.

Sanders has no such problem, he's beholden to no corporation.

So do you want a candidate that has to censor oneself instead of expressing the reality? or do you want a candidate that can express oneself and doesn't have to censor ones comments?

The choice is yours.

I choose Bernie.

[Javaman]

70. When you are beholden to the corporations for your donations...

you can only talk in euphemisms and deal only in micromanagement, because if you deal in micromanagement, you piss of the very people who feed your campaign.

that is, in a nutshell Hillary's problem.

Sanders has no such problem, he's beholden to no corporation.

So do you want a candidate that has to censor oneself instead of expressing the reality? or do you want a candidate that can express oneself and doesn't have to censor ones comments?

The choice is yours.

I choose Bernie.

[hfojvt]

84. I would say they encouraged it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022085948

"Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans."

From Dean Baker http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/26-0

Although I would say it is not just the "very rich" who gain.

For example, the share of income going to the richest 5% was 17% in 1970 and 22.2% in 2005.

Of course that group also includes the "very rich", but the share going to the top 20% was 43.3% in 1970 and 50.4% in 2005. Meaning the share of the 15% went from 26.3% to 28.2%.

The main reason I hate all this focus on the legendary 1% is because some people's idea of 'redistribution" is to take from the 1% and give to the 19% - leaving the 80% with trickle-down lite.

[reformist2]

85. The problem is systemic - the "rules" of capitalism are the problem.

Any system that allows wealth to get vacuumed up to the top of the food chain, with a great sucking sound, if you will, is obviously unjust, and fails to properly recognize the value of the work all the people at the bottom have contributed. The system is designed to benefit owners at the expense of the workers. Notice how it's called "capitalism" and not "laborism"? It makes it clear who's in charge, no?

[Armstead]

89. That's a bigger question than I'm aiming at

For the forseeable future, we're going to be a capitalist society.

Given that, we need strong restraints on the natural tendency for wealth to be vaccumized upward (and for monopolistic monsters to be formed), and to keep the other excess of unbridled capitalism at least within bounds.

[AOR]

100. You're probably right on your first point...

your second point is mystical thinking. The entire history of capitalist social relations - with a few minor detours- moves in the exact opposite direction of what many are hoping for. Capitalism has never been "restrained" to benefit the whole and it never will be. That is objective material reality and there is no narrative that proves otherwise.

[Armstead]

104. Well it's a constant struggle

But frankly, to believe we're going to shake off capitalism anytime in the foreseeable future is mystical thinking.

[AOR]

131. Well...it's never good to be excessively dour Armstead...

but I don't think there is going to be much choice but to shake off capitalism...it is running out of planet to despoil. Infinite growth, war and conquest for profit, destruction of the environment, and the continued downward spiral of more and more of working class into poverty can't continue without a breaking point.

[Cheese Sandwich]

152. Most people here still think capitalism can be saved

I'm with you we need a new thing.

[eridani]

155. Re-regulate (as in the New Deal) or abolish? One thing I think we can agree on--

--is that something has to change, fast.

[AOR]

166. The human race is nothing more than a commodity to be exploited under capitalism...

How much longer will we hear "capitalism hasn't failed, it was just implemented incorrectly" and to what actual result have these reformers ever implemented it correctly that even came close to benefiting the human needs of the whole before profit ? How much more time will they need for correct implementation of capitalism that serves people first before profit ? They will need eternity because it is not possible. Capitalism is built on a foundation of the institutionalized theft of the people's resources and labor.

Personally, I don't have a preference on what one would call the alternative. The people are smart enough to move on from this insidious shit that leaves millions behind. They'll figure it out once the pestilence and barbarity of capitalism is gone. How about we figure out a way to pool our labor power into political power and then take care of the basics of survival for all citizens first without profits. You know - the important shit - like food, water, housing ,education, health care ect... then take it from there. People can do any damn thing they want after that structure is in place as far as I'm concerned. Hell, people can label it any way they want. Call it a start-up for a new and improved humanity if we have to be an "entrepreneurs."

[Cheese Sandwich]

167. It's hard to get liberals into socialism because it takes a certain amount of looking into it.

To understand just the basics of why capitalism is a disaster and not easy to reform.

It isn't taught in schools in the US really. It was purged out of the culture at some point.

I think maybe in Latin America and Europe people might have better background info on what it is and why it's needed.

[AOR]

169. Liberalism is capitalism...

and has always been thus. Liberals are not stupid and they are not leftists... they are capitalists. It is what it is. It does nobody any good to hide from the facts. And truth be told... the liberals have done a pretty good job themselves of purging, co-opting, and red-baiting leftist political views and socialism out of the equation. There is a reason why many leftists are not fond of liberalism and those who claim the mantle. I don't say this to be nasty...I say it because it is unvarnished truth that is not in dispute. One either stands with capitalism or they don't. It is not that hard of a stance to put into words. Putting it into action is obviously an entirely different story, as we all have to try an survive in a system - rotten to the core - while fighting against it at the same time.

[reformist2]

170. Yep. We don't need another New Deal - we need a New Game.

[AOR]

92. +1 and well said...

[dmosh42]

86. HRC let Chuck Toad completely control the interview, compared to Bernie who shut him down pronto!

[RoccoR5955]

88. Sorry to say this, but Enough is NOT Enough

Enough is TOO MUCH!

[Joe Turner]

99. Third Way Democrats encouraged it

There is no meaningful difference on economic matters at least between the DLC /3rd way democratic leadership and the republican party. Instead of standing up for people and taking on the wealthy elite, they joined it. Bernie's our only hope on beginning to turn the tide.

[Enthusiast]

101. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Thank you, Armstead!

Enough is enough, for me!

We cannot continue to allow the nation to go in a direction that causes us harm. Another trade deal would be harmful. We do not want another trade deal. Why should we have to accept a trade deal that would cost us additional jobs and possibly undermine our national sovereignty? I cannot repeat what I think of the President for pushing this TPP and TTIP.

[Duval]

114. I heartily agree.

I didn't watch Meet The Press this morning, mainly because I thought it would be the "same old stuff". Guess I was correct. Bernie is my candidate of choice and somehow we'll have to help get his message to everyone. We sure cannot count on our Media to help.

[senz]

116. "The soft and fluffy side of liberalism" is the easy way to manipulate the public.

Children, woman,and families are obviously important but, as you say, they deflect from actual causes -- established practices, corrupt legislation, a rigged system -- that must be changed if we are ever to make this country serve its citizens again. But if a candidate doesn't want to alienate the money and power boys, he/she does not address these things. Instead, he/she "stays positive" by extolling the fluffy side of liberalism that anyone but the most hardcore rightwinger can find acceptable.

What's hopeful is that Bernie's huge crowds are ready, more than ready, to bypass slogans and start talking about how we can actually change the system.

[eridani]

156. Yep. Keep fishing the drowning kids out of the river. But don't dare even ask--

--who is throwing them in the river in the first place, let alone try to stop them.

[mountain grammy]

117. Very well said, excellent post.

I do like Hillary. She's an amazing woman who has accomplished great things and could fulfill my dream of a woman president. That said, and for every reason you said, I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.

As I read your post, every time I thought of something to say, you said it. Nearly all problems grow from the big one, the great divide between rich and poor and the concentration of wealth and power.

[Hatchling]

121. k&r! nt

[Paka]

122. K&R

Enough is Enough! GO BERNIE!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

123. Republicans invoke the same images of family and a happier time too.....

Then they blame the government for why we don't have that anymore and swear they will stop it.

Also, when they talk about "prosperity" and "freedom" it's always about this weird notion that EVERYONE should run out RIGHT NOW and start their own business. Workers? They're idiots who haven't realized they could be their own boss.

[stuffmatters]

132. Perhaps the Dem debates were postponed to protect the TPP not just Hillary

At this point these "Nafta on steroids" treaties are pretty obscure issue to the vast American public and have been widely ignored by the MSM-nightly news. Not only is Bernie outspoken and informed about these destructive T Treaties, he will both bring them up and challenge Hillary on them...thus forcing some(finally) MSM coverage and detailed criticism of their harmful future to not just American workers & consumers our sovereign democracy itself.

I suspect the "powers that be" in both the WH and Corporate DNC thought the TPP would be a done deal by Oct 11 and already flying through the Repub Congress. Instead the TPP nation reps are still (right now!) ironing out differences... consensus delayed apparently now over big Pharma's insatiable demands the US delegation is pushing. So the timing got screwed up and maybe, just maybe the TPP will not be a done deal by Oct 11, the first and mightily delayed Dem debate.

BTW the first abbreviation for TPP was "SHAFTA" I hope Bernie stresses its original moniker a few times in the debate.

[senz]

168. Thank you. Very important point.

I hope people will stay focused on it, especially as we approach the first debate, because TPP would be a huge step toward solidifying corporate domination of most of the world.

That is no exaggeration. TPP, like the WTO and NAFTA, gives corporations legal power to challenge laws enacted by democratically elected governments. The WTO is nearly worldwide, NAFTA is specific to our continent, TPP would more closely control Asian countries.

I hope to God everyone thinks about the ramifications of this much corporate power.

(But, stuffmatters, SHAFTA was an acronym cleverly invented by Thom Hartmann, not by the formulators of TPP. )

[WillyT]

136. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

[Hiraeth]

143. Is NeoLiberalism another word for Libertarian? Thanks for the OP. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

144. knr. Third way Dems encouraged others because they failed to sound an alarm ...

to sit idly by and succumb to corporate interests is an affront to many people who are now saying enough is enough.

Great post!

[Jenny_92808]

145. I am voting for Bernie.....

but if Bernie doesn't win, we must support Hillary because the alternative will cause great (additional) damage to our nation.

[eridani]

157. Agreed. It would be better to put the car in "Drive," but if we can't do that--

--better in Neutral than in hard reverse. With "Neutral" a mass movement can still push the car forward.

[ChiciB1]

146. One Of The Main Reasons I'm Supporting Bernie!

Ask Bernie a question and you'll get an answer whether it's popular or not. BUT, there's almost always some details about how we can come together if we're willing to work together. Yes, it's called "compromising" but the kind of compromising that doesn't mean caving in or one-sided. What has disturbed me so much is that OUR Democratic Party lacks cohesion and is fractured because DLC/Third Way lean more to the right. Where Repubs generally get some kind of memo and they pull together enough and make Democrats look weak. Repubs are fracturing more than before, but I don't think when the chips are down they crack enough to lose the battle.

I feel Hillary is being forced to make concessions that she wouldn't if Bernie wasn't running. IMO, it's kind of a "bait and switch" tactic that makes me feel uneasy because I'm not sure she would govern this way if elected.

Bernie also states up front that "we the people" are needed more than ever if we're serious enough to follow through. He knows he's not getting the support he needs from Congress, Wall Street AND the Democrats who actually seems to be working against him as a nominee. We know it's difficult to deliver on many issues, but I feel he comes in willing to fight a good fight.

So it's crucial that those of us have to fight for and with him. Even many Democrats who have said the same things he has in the past, when the rubber meets the road are truly spineless and to me seem worse because even they are the biggest liars. At least we know that the DLC/Third Way Dems are well known!

[Enthusiast]

149. +1!

[Kilgore]

151. Bravo!

[harun]

160. Now that's a good post.

[raouldukelives]

161. K&R The more shareholders Wall St has, the less of chance Bernie does. nt

[NonMetro]

163. Well, You're Right! But Vote For Hillary, Anyway?

Because it will be Hillary. The die was cast long before she even....um....ha!ha!....."entered" the...um...."race"? Everyone is excited about the first woman president. That's the spectacle.

I agree with everything you've said, but she's going to win, and when she does, I'll vote for her. She's better than the alternative. I'll vote for Bernie in the meanwhile, but I'll be in the minority. Everyone is just sooooooo! excited about having a woman president! It makes them feel better to know how "advanced" this country has become that the people could actually elect a woman for president. Yea! We're an advanced country!

[marym625]

164. I would quadruple rec this if I could

Excellent post! Very well said!



Thank you