"Another Wall Street Dem is running for pres.Once again we must choose btn acquiescence & rebellion"

[RiverLover]

This is written by Bill Curry. He was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

I'm posting here the last part of his piece & leaving out the painful look at HRC's sad roll-out as our nominee. He makes some excellent points below & its really good to see further proof we are NOT alone in our deep desire to see a better path for our party, & for our country..

....

My differences with Clinton are entirely substantive. Today’s issues may not divide as deeply as those of 1968 but they’re just as important. Because Clinton’s history on them is problematic, real debate is indispensable. Let me sketch out four overarching issues.

The Economy: The great dispute between Democratic elites and the Democratic base is over the economy. For years the elites have cheered globalization. Like Tom Friedman they see it as a ‘golden straightjacket’; a thing we can’t escape but wouldn’t want to as it will soon answer all our prayers. They view unfettered growth, trade and markets and nearly all technology as benign. Most of us see that a rising tide no longer lifts all boats, or most boats, or hardly any boats at all. Not them. We see how our tools no longer seem to need us. We seek a more permanent and humane economy rooted in enterprises of smaller scale. They say fine but see no conflict between their agenda and ours. The next big fight in this war is the battle over the Trans Pacific Trade agreement. The Democratic base along with just about the entire middle class opposes it in its present form. The next leader of the Democratic Party should be on the same side as the base and the middle class.

The Government: How can 60 percent of the country agree with Democrats on taxes, Social Security, Medicare, same sex marriage, gun safety, every last plank of the President’s immigration plan, the Cuban embargo, the Iran nuclear weapons deal and the truth about global warming and still vote Republican? The answer may be their identification of Democrats as the party of a government they despise. They care about frugality but what they hate most is corruption. All across the world public anger over corruption now drives politics. Our politicians hardly mention it but our people care as much about it as anyone. The big problem isn’t the petty bribes. It’s what Anthony Kennedy foolishly calls ‘soft corruption.’ Suffice it to say the Clinton record on it is spotty. The Democrats’ next leader must have a credible plan to curb public corruption. It won’t happen without robust debate.

National Security: Here the public’s views are less settled. There’s an uptick in fear due to ISIS and Republicans do all they can to fan its flames. It isn’t enough to be for peace or against military interventions. We need to show people why our old military doctrines are defunct and that we have a better way to keep them safe. There may have been a time when America had to be the world’s policeman. God knows it needs one and for many years nobody else could afford to take the job. No more. It’s time to stop shooting our way into places we don’t belong. We can go on paying the price and taking all the blowback or we can fix the UN and honor the rule of law. I don’t think Clinton grasps the argument. In 2008 she ran as Xena, the Warrior Princess. In four years as Secretary of State she was Obama’s resident hawk. For all her travels she has yet to wake up to the world we now live in.

Climate Change: Every Democrat has grown more attuned to climate change and Hillary’s no exception. Obama’s second term has been a vast improvement on his first. Any Democrat will continue the forward movement just as any Republican may wind up putting our species out of business. The question here isn’t about whether Hillary wants to do the right thing it is whether anyone will do enough. If nearly all our scientists are right it is the overarching political and moral issue of our age. It isn’t enough just to beat the Republicans or improve on the past. We need to solve the problem. Anyone who knows anything about the issue knows this: we’re running out of time.

Democrats can no longer pretend these differences don’t exist. If they insist on doing so, progressives can’t let them.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/19/my_party_fears_a_debate_this_same_nervous_centrism_created_the_tea_party/

[cantbeserious]

1. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - The 1% Manchurian Candidate

[JDPriestly]

82. +10000

[swilton]

109. +

[CoffeeCat]

114. Thank you! YES!

No thanks to the corporatist candidate and the warmonger who voted for the Iraq war and also began
banging the drum for war with Iran, when Bush was president.

So much wrong with her.

If she is our nominee, I will be politically homeless.

[Enthusiast]

2. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! HRC should read this article.

Her supporters should read this article. It would help you understand why so many of us are less than excited about a HRC candidacy. The nation has already gone way too far in the wrong direction.

"Most of us see that a rising tide no longer lifts all boats, or most boats, or hardly any boats at all."

[RiverLover]

3. So true!

Its a good summation of why we aren't enthused for Hillary.

[nxylas]

6. I doubt the HRC personality cult will ever understand

In their minds, the only reason one could oppose Her Royal Inevitableness is that you're a bad person who doesn't want women everywhere to have a Symbol of Hope (TM).

[BeanMusical]

10. +1 Well said.

[brooklynite]

11. Good plan! Insult everyone who doesn't agree with you!

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Offensive and completely wrong.

I am not sure who you think you are that you think it is appropriate to insult anyone who has a different opinion than you do.

I am tired of the straw-man created just to knock it down. I don't know anyone who believes that Clinton is "Her Royal Inevitableness."

My original reply title was "screw you."

[nxylas]

32. If you don't want to be offended, you're better off staying out of Populist Reform

There's a Hillary Clinton group where her supporters can insist she be treated with the deference to which they believe she's entitled. We don't do that here. I'm sorry if that offends or frightens you.

[RiverLover]

33. +1

Well said, nxylas.

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. disappointed

that democrats are not treated with respect on the democratic forum.

I did not realize this was a group post. I was reading "latest threads"

[nxylas]

75. That cuts both ways

The "kneel before Zod" crowd haven't shown a whole lot of respect to anyone they deem insufficiently reverential to their leader either.

[peacebird]

103. Evergreen Emerald, I did not realize I was in HRC's forum, posted one comment & was banned

First time i have ever been banned on DU. The HIllaryites definately do NOT treat those of us with any questions about HRC "with respect", at least you didn't get banned here.

[RiverLover]

61. !!!!

Nailed it.

[ChiciB1]

66. I Completely Agree With You AND...

it really scares me. I know I'm still a Democrat but it's getting very difficult recognizing the party I joined a long time ago!

[RiverLover]

105. Yep, me too. /nt

[CoffeeCat]

115. I'm a woman...

…and I say bullshit to that.

I'd love a woman President, but hell if I'm going to vote for someone who kow tows to corporations and is a warmongering neocon.

What's the point of furthering feminist causes, if all other Progressive ideals are catapulted back into the Stone Age?

[nxylas]

120. Quite

It's a shame that Elizabeth Warren probably isn't running, for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it would rob the Clintonistas of a particularly fatuous argument.

[m-lekktor]

4. K & R! nt

[MissDeeds]

5. Important article

I doubt it wil change the minds of HRC's supporters, but it should be read.

K&R

[Laser102]

7. President Hillary Clinton!

That's right. SHE was behind the one percent getting all the Money. It was her idea to bankrupt the country and take people's rights and lively hoods away. VILE WOMAN!! She is the devil herself! We are all doomed. Horrors. I can't wait!

[RiverLover]

9. ^^^This is what conservatives do when they don't have a valid response to truth.

Well done.

And welcome to DU!! So looking forward to more thoughtful posts.

[MaggieD]

68. There is not a grain of truth about Clinton in the OP

They should rename this site Republican Underground. Sickening.

[workinclasszero]

71. No kidding!

The Koch bros are cheering the purists on!

Just know you are doing the devil's work you gullible fools.

[merrily]

125. IOW, you do know you are in the Populist Group and you are deliberating violating its

rules and purpose.

[Jester Messiah]

86. Anti-hils aren't the ones backing a conservative.

And for the dem nomination, no less.

[MaggieD]

88. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck

The nasty, fact free statements and accusations are worthy of derision. And that is what they will get from me.

[dreamnightwind]

118. You're saying if we oppose her from the left

that we are Republicans? If so, that is laughable. People here believe the duck is your candidate, who quacks like a Republican on many policy issues. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the protector of the least among us, not the party of the oligarchs and free marketeers. That's some duck.

[MaggieD]

119. It is no different

Every bash here is full of nebulous bullshit conjecture never accompanied by actual evidence of whatever the accusation du jour is. They are completely fact free.

And that's exactly the method republicans use.

[dreamnightwind]

121. I completely disagree

Tell me, since you are posting here, I don't really understand how you are working towards progressive reform of the Democratic Party?

[MaggieD]

122. Been doing it for years

Me and my congresswoman are on a first name basis. And I've helped pass major progressive legislation as an activist. Bashing people in your own party does not get the job done, I can assure you of that.

The OP is not about me though.

[dreamnightwind]

123. I was asking how you are doing so with your posts in this forum

because to me it looks like you are working against such efforts.

The name of the group includes the word reform, which is a statement that the party is in need of progressive reform, rather than accepting the policies and candidates the party establishment throws at us. If we felt represented by those things, we would not be seeking reform. I know of no way of reform that doesn't start with addressing that which needs reforming.

edit to add that I erroneously used "progressive" when the group's name uses the word "populist". There is certainly a difference, though to me they are just words circling around the real issue, which is true in either case.

[merrily]

126. Hi, what would you think of a "do not feed those who troll this group" policy?

[dreamnightwind]

132. Hi...

I don't know, is this your forum? I was thinking this is probably someone who should not be allowed to post here, unless she shows an actual willingness to engage in the group's stated purpose.

I was actually hoping she could be brought around, or seeing if that was possible. At first she seemed unaware of what the group was about. I don't like bans, I also don't like letting posts opposed to what a group is about go unchallenged. She might be a decent Dem who could be an ally, though I've seen her in GD threads riding pretty hard on people who aren't into Hillary, so not likely. If sheis just a troll here then she should be banned.

I really, really don't want us to tolerate being called Republicans, when it's the party's Republican leanings (and their ties to people like Wil Marshall and Al From) which make this forum necessary. Sorry if I jumped in and fed it, I really don't think we should let that kind of thing stand though, and it's rampant on DU.

[merrily]

133. I get it, dreamnightwind.

You have absolutely zero for which to apologize. You've been doing nothing but posting civilly and appropriately in this group. Thank you for that.

[MaggieD]

130. Well you're sporting a sticker...

... for someone who has no intention of running and has been emphatic about that. So I'm not thinking you're a big fan of reality.

[RiverLover]

135. You may not be aware of the reality there is a major DRAFT effort to convince Warren

to change her mind.

MoveOn, DFA, WFP are carrying on.

Campaigning hard for a candidate who isn't
4/25/15

DOVER, N.H. — Kurt Ehrenberg spent three hours one day this week trying to convince people to try to convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

...Snip...

“We wouldn’t be running this campaign,” said Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of Democracy for America, “if we didn’t think it was very possible.”

“This is our priority,” said Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, “and we don’t have plans to stop.”

Run Warren Run, founded and funded by Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, launched in December. The group has nine paid staffers in Iowa and two paid staffers in New Hampshire. It is about to hire two more in New Hampshire. It has offices in Iowa in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids and in New Hampshire in Manchester, in a small, drab building catty-corner form a pizza place, the windows plastered with placards.

So far, according to Chamberlain and Wikler, Run Warren Run has spent approximately $1.25 million, on staff, signs, shirts, cards, stickers and rent. The tally of names who have signed up on the cards or online asking her to run: 325,000. Next up? Maybe more staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe staff in other states, maybe ads on TV.

...They say there’s time for Warren to get in; Bill Clinton, after all, didn’t announce his 1992 candidacy until October 1991. They point, too, to precedent: The one time Warren ran for public office, she initially didn’t want to....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire-117332.html

And still no calls from Liz to these organizations, asking them to stop their efforts. Would so love for her to change her mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12653793

[Maedhros]

78. She certainly participated in it - ENTHUSIASTICALLY. [n/t]

[rhett o rick]

117. I am so embarassed for you. How sad. Clinton is a tool of the Olgarchy and you think your

post is a defense? Her and her husband have acquired $100,000,000 in the last 15 years w/o breaking a sweat. That's not my kind of candidate. Her ties with Goldman-Sachs make it very hard for a open-minded person to believe she supports anyone other than Goldman-Sachs. They are making profits of hundreds of billions and she told them (for a price) that she sympathized with them when bad people said they were naughty.

Seriously, do you think if you choose the 1% over the 99% that the 1% will somehow reward you?

[zeemike]

8. K&R.

But I suspect this will fall on far to many deaf ears.

[RedstDem]

12. I wouldn't worry about Hilliary's policies as president

Cause she won't win.
Its all a setup, running hill just gets us a third bush in the whitehouse.

[RiverLover]

15. sarcasm tag needed :)

[merrily]

18. Thanks, RiverLover. On second thought, I'll just delete.

[merrily]

13. Traveling around in a vehicle, asking people questions, reminds me of how Scott Brown

began his run for Ted Kennedy's seat.

He traveled around the state in his truck, asking people what they needed. (I don't think he filmed and aired these sessions as Hillary is doing, though, I might be mistaken.)

He ran an ad in which he quoted JFK and he ran a bunch of endorsements by ex-Democratic Mayors of a number of Massachusetts towns, including Flynn of Boston (appointed ambassador to the Vatican by Clinton). The idea was to portray that Brown was a man of the people, a populist, if you will, and almost a Democrat, who was going to work to get the people what they wanted, if only they'd elect him.


Then, he got elected and voted with the Democrats exactly once when it mattered--and, at that, only after revising the bill to make it worse. And then, he lost to Warren.

[truedelphi]

127. But never ever forget all the good luck those

Average people had in being able to reach out and touch an actual big time-y politician.

I mean, the thrill. The excitement. The memory that will be added to stories you can tell your grandchildren, "Now my sweet little honeys, back when we human beings still had this stuff called food, and many of us ate it two three and four times a day, we once even got to touch the cloak of the Good Lady Hillary. I had acne at the time, but it cleared right up, just moments after my hand brushed her cloak.

"And then Hillary won. But sadly she continued to let pesticide manufacturers and Monsanto, Novartis and others continue to make products that killed the bees, which is why the only food we eat now are remnants from old shoes, from back when shoes were made of cow hides, before all the cows were slaughtered due to the ban on meat eating."

[merrily]

128. You bad.

(I kid.)

Speaking of remnants of old shoes, New England once manufactured a lot of new shoes. Turns out, tanning the leather creates huge environmental problems. Clean up costs the landowner a fortune, maybe more than the land is worth. It's sad.

But, Malaysia many not know that yet. Or afford to turn down leather tanneries, even if they do know. So, in addition to cheap labor, there is the crapping up of the entire planet, with no need to comply with things like Massachusetts' picky land use regulations. So many benefits of manufacturing abroad, so few domestic politicians who won't roll over and find some way to enable, perhaps even reward, that kind of behavior. "Cause heaven knows, we all loves us some job creators/environment destroyers, even if the jobs are created outside the US.

.

[truedelphi]

139. I keep hoping that some ambitious group of young environmentalists gets on "Shark Tank"

And points out to the Sharks that among the many reasons that manufacturing abroad is so fiscally reasonable is due to slamming the planet with the residues of manufacturing.

It is really sad that people who consider themselves to be decent humans do not get it

Damen on "Shark Tank" does not eat meat, due to his concern for the environment. Yet when invited to speak on Larry Wilmore's comedy show, regarding the slave labor, and semi-slave labor conditions of foreign workers, then his whole attitude was "I don't really get told about the working conditions in the places in China that manufacture my goods, so I cannot be held accountable for what I do not know."

PS I suspect from your comments that you have read "The Civil Action" which was an award winning book detailing the cases against a big American firm that owned the land where chemicals got into the water supply and killed so many people in the community due to the resulting leukemia. The book also became a movie, as well.

[merrily]

140. Same thing Kathie Lee Gifford said about little kids in sweat shops.

$ uber alles.

I did see the film long ago, but I wasn't thinking of it when I wrote my post. I was thinking only of the New England leather tanneries for shoe manufacturing because of the shoe references on the thread. Good guess, though!

[Cosmocat]

16. Absolutely bullshit on government ...

For every one democrat with "corruption" there are countless more republicans involved in corruption, more extensive and more in your face and unapologetic about it.

This country could give a fuck all about corruption, quite frankly, when it comes to VOTING.

And, sorry, the "Clinton" record on "corruption" is in 95% republican poutrage on steroids.

Yes, Hillary is warmed over. Yes, she is a politician. Yes, she is too corporate for my preference.

But, while republicans excuse EVERYTHING their jackasses do, only democrats are fricken feckless enough to put knives in fellow democrats, much less spew republican bullshit doing it.

You don't like her, you want better.

Great.

Find or get behind someone you think is better in the primary and fight for him or her.

I will be more than happy to get behind someone better if they rise to the top.

But, the next time you see a republican elbowing past democrats to take shots at some republican FAR, FAR worse than Hillary Clinton will be the first time.

Keep that in mind when you look around and see their majorities in congress, the supreme court, state governments.



The Government: How can 60 percent of the country agree with Democrats on taxes, Social Security, Medicare, same sex marriage, gun safety, every last plank of the President’s immigration plan, the Cuban embargo, the Iran nuclear weapons deal and the truth about global warming and still vote Republican? The answer may be their identification of Democrats as the party of a government they despise. They care about frugality but what they hate most is corruption. All across the world public anger over corruption now drives politics. Our politicians hardly mention it but our people care as much about it as anyone. The big problem isn’t the petty bribes. It’s what Anthony Kennedy foolishly calls ‘soft corruption.’ Suffice it to say the Clinton record on it is spotty. The Democrats’ next leader must have a credible plan to curb public corruption. It won’t happen without robust debate.

[merrily]

19. Unless you want Hillary to be the nominee, don't wait for someone else to rise to

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

the top. Early support is important, especially if you can make a donation.

Early Money Is Like Yeast. It makes the dough rise. (EMILY's List).

[Cosmocat]

41. FINE

Get behind him and fight like hell for him.

[merrily]

43. I did and I am and I will.

It's odd that someone who describes Hillary as warmed over gets incensed at the suggestion they get behind someone else unless they do want Hillary, despite that they say.

[Cosmocat]

45. I said I would get behind someone who was better

I like Sanders, might support him IF or WHEN he comes in.

I WILL NOT knock him or any other D, unless they truly are bad.

[merrily]

46. He said he will come in if he sees the support. So,

waiting to see if comes in is self defeating--again, unless you really want Hillary.

Frankly, I think you do.

[Cosmocat]

49. well

if it makes you feel better about dismissing the slamming of her to justify it like that, go with what works for you.

Whether I get behind him or not, I won't engage in knocking Bernie Sanders.

I live in a republican area, and am friends with a lot of Rs.

I can't count the times I have heard them, in the last week, bemoaning Hillary.

But, sure, join in.

[merrily]

50. Again, this is the Populist Group. You don't get to berate us for criticizing Hillary

Save it for GD or the Hillary Group. It's totally out of place here.

I don't care if support Hillary, but I am tired of people saying they don't like her, then go on to post as you do.

[still_one]

55. That is exactly right. Organizing and grass roots support are necessary if folks

want to challenge the presumptive nominee.

[merrily]

56. Thanks. As far as I am concerned, though, she's one of several hopefuls.

[still_one]

58. I agree. I also think that support needs to start as soon

as possible for those candidates to get on the map.

[merrily]

62. I made up my mind Friday afternoon and I've already done several things.

I also volunteered and look forward to hearing back on that.

I really felt so much better just deciding my direction.

[RiverLover]

20. I hope we do have a true primary where I/we can fight for someone else.

And I hope it doesn't end up just some stage show for HRC's coronation. We have serious problems, more acting like republicans once elected isn't going to solve them.

That's kind of the point of the article.

[merrily]

21. Have you done anything to urge Sanders to run? He says he will run if he sees support.

I understand you are holding out for Warren, but you don't have to do a lot. If you facebook, you can "like" him and leave a comment urging him to run. At bernie.org, you can sign up for updates. You can always unsubscribe later. Any indicium of support would be good.

I think it's important to have that kind of voice in the race. I don't believe Hillary's new populism and it doesn't take away her war vote or her 2008 "racially-tinged" campaign, anyway. I'm not sure about O'Malley yet. I am sure Sanders life matches up to his rhetoric.

If Warren ever decides to jump in, I will re-assess. Meanwhile, I will support Bernie.

Just a suggestion.

[RiverLover]

23. I get his updates & sign all of his petitions & have been on 2 of his conference calls with MoveOn

I'll support him for sure.

But I am holding hope for a miraculous change of heart in Warren.

[merrily]

27. As I said, I will reassess if and when she gets in the race. I just want to do all I can

to make sure someone I trust completely is in the race. If neither of them gets in, I guess I'll go with O'Malley, unless someone else gets in who has said nothing yet.

[RiverLover]

31. Me too. exactly. /nt

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Yeah, pretty much.

But 2016 is a long time away. So many things can happen.

[Cosmocat]

37. the article is hyperbolic bullshit

She isn't great.

But:

1) She isn't as bad as this bullshit piece makes her out to be
2) There very likely will not be any real viable democratic candidate who is all that great as an alternative
3) She is LIGHT YEARS, L I G H T Y E A R S better than whoever the republican will be

I repeat - if you want better, get behind someone who you think is better.

But, end of the day she is likely who are are going to have to roll with.

I GET IT, I get the idealistic desire to have a pol who isn't bought and paid.

But, there aren't many of them AND as a people we tend to go out of our way to NOT elect them while going out of our way to elect the kind of pols we SAY we hate.

People might want to look around who they are standing with (the republican party) with all this hyperbolic slamming of her.

[merrily]

48. In this group, you don't get to compare us to Republicans.

This is not the Hillary Group or GD or the Third Way Group.

[Cosmocat]

52. Even if "this group" is saying the same things they are?

You draw the comparison to yourself when you spew the same nonsense the republicans are spewing ...

Article posted in the OP bemoans the "clinton corruption" problem.

Which has been the lead in story for every Fox News show for decades.

[merrily]

53. YES. Even if you don't like what is being said. In this group, it's your kind of

post that is totally out of place, not ours.

And the author of that article is a Democratic politician who fucking worked for Clinton.

[MaggieD]

84. I disagree....

If it quacks like a duck, it's as good as a duck.

It would be different if any of these republican like talking points had any basis in fact behind them, but just like the republicans do it is spouted nonsense. None of you ever back up what you say with a quote by HRC to back up what you accuse her of.

THAT disgusts me.

[merrily]

124. Then you misapprehend the rules of this board in general, as well as the purpose of "safe haven"

groups in general. Also the specific purpose of this particular group, which the administrators of the board approved.


I don't agree with anything in your post, but I won't debate it with you because it simply does not belong in this group to begin with. Save it for GD or the Hillary Group.

THAT disgusts me.

Too bad, but I'm afraid that is your problem. Your only legitimate remedies are to stay out of this group, which I highly recommend to you, to use hide thread and ignore, to alert, or to complain in the admin forum. Barging in here to attack and spew to posters who have not even addressed you, let alone attacked you, is not a legitimate option.

[MaggieD]

129. Thanks for your recommendations - I'll pass

[merrily]

131. You're welcome, but you'll pass on what?

Pass on posting in this forum?

[MannyGoldstein]

134. Happy trails. nt

[still_one]

57. Actually, special DU groups offer certain sanctuary for promoting

certain views, and critisizing those that in this case don't represent people who in the groups eyes do not represent the populist reform of the Democratic Party

The GD forum presents a more open avenue to discuss and argue

I think it is important to respect a groups purpose

[RiverLover]

60. Thank you. /nt

[Rilgin]

116. the exact opposite is true

The criticisms are diametrically opposed. Republicans are saying she is a flaming left wing socialist. Democrats who do not want HRC as a candidate are saying that the problem is that she isnt.

[Doctor_J]

63. I thought the BOG and the HRC fans were standing with the republicans on TPP

People might want to look around who they are standing with (the republican party)

I agree

[RiverLover]

64. Exactly.

The irony whenever they use that attack is overwhelming sometimes. Our objection is that these types of Wall Street Dems act too much like rethugs. Just doesn't sink in that we are anti-republican policies so much that we don't like them pushed by either party. It hurts worse when they come from our own party, and that is the only thing we can try to change. Republicans exist for those positions, we can't change that, we can only try to bring Democrats back to being a true opposition. Not a capitulating one.

Lesser Evilism hurts our country & the party. We can do better.

[MaggieD]

85. Where is your evidence for that?

As far as I can tell, just about everything said about HRC here is pulled out of someone's ear. It certainly reminds of fact free republicans on certain other forums. I don't think anyone could tell the difference if the quotes made here were presented outside of this site.

[MaggieD]

70. It sure is!!

[Perseus]

26. Wow...the one sensible post...thank you Cosmocat

I gave it a shot at providing a similar answer, but you hit the nail on the head...

All this thing about Warren, she won't run, and like Cosmocat, I urge to point out anyone better than Hillary who IS running...I would love to see a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren ticket, but do not forget that the electorate IS ignorant and they won't see themselves drinking a beer with either of them, so their chances of winning is not very high.

The GOP clown car is not a funny one, it is scary, anyone of those crazies will do a lot of damage to the country and the World, if you think GW was harmful, wait and see.

Democrats have to become united because Republicans always are, no matter who is running, they don't read, they don't try to understand what their candidates are really promising, when you find women, and some Latinos still vote republican you know then that their level of understanding of the issues and their candidates is zero.

I may not like Hillary 100%, but I dislike the crazies very much, and when the time comes, I will make sure to vote for the one that still gives some hope to all of us.

[merrily]

39. Meh, I think the beer thing is over and I would never have one with Hillary

People will vote for whoever they think will actually improve their lives. That would be Sanders or Warren in my opinion. I think O'Malley has a shot, too.

This really isn't the right group to campaign for Hillary as a primary candidate anyway.

[L0oniX]

36. I agree with you ...the 1% has chosen Hillary and no one else has enough money to rise above her.

[Cosmocat]

40. The 1% casts 1% of the vote

She may or may not be in bed with the 1%, but end of the day if she is the nominee, there will be FAR more non "1%" voting for her than not ...

They can rig the system like mad, but end of the day, WE elect these people.

[L0oniX]

44. Right ...and all those tv campaign ads paid for by the 1% have no affect.

[Cosmocat]

47. Not the cause and effect

The ads aren't the cause, they are they are symptom.

If the STUPID wasn't hard wired into us, they wouldn't work.

They run them because they work.

Let me step back, I was firing away at other people.

WE DO agree about the 1%.

I am just saying, while they wield great influence and power, end of the day, it is our extraordinarily horrible decision making in the voting booths (and not actually voting) that is the real problem.

[ieoeja]

76. When 100% of the messengers say the same thing, people figure it must be true.

I'm not sure I would call them stupid in that event.

In 2000 the New York Times wrote a report quoting Al Gore's alleged claim to have discovered Love Canal. In Chicago, that story was reported everywhere for a week.

Then the New York Times received a recording of Al Gore's speech from the school children where he allegedly said it, reviewed the recording, and the reporter realized he mis-interpreted what Al Gore said. So they reported the correction. In Chicago, that story was reported everywhere for a day.

I went to visit family in southern Indiana at that same time. Every local media source was still reporting the original New York Times report. Yes, some people did remember a correction of some sort being reported on the national news one evening, but the radios, local news and local newspapers were still pushing "New York Times reported Al Gore discovered Love Canal".

Then the Third Way came into play. Pundits quipped during Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign that they had never seen a Presidential candidate campaigning against his own Party before. Clinton spent more time running against the Democratic controlled Congress than he did against Bush. But Clinton won, so Democrats in the Bible Belt copied him. Which meant every Democratic politician was saying, "I'm not like that Al Gore who lied about discovering Love Canal".

Even Democrats are telling everyone that all other Democrats are bad, m'kay? When even the Democrats are telling people Democrats are bad, it would be surprising if they did not start believing that Democrats are bad.

[Cosmocat]

90. End of the day, it is the stupid

First, yes, there are many examples of situations where the media gets behind bullshit and that is information people are getting. But, almost every time, it stinks. They also said Al Gore said he invented the internet. Same deal, they took something he said and lied about it. But, just like Iraq, it stunk. People have to WANT to believe most of this stuff.

Second, time after time after time, republicans spin and lie. They also, quite literally are wrong on EVERYTHING. But, more often than not people take them and their spin as truth.

The monied interests putting all kind of money into this shit is NOT the cause, it is a symptom. They do it because it works.

The saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Well, they lead the horses to the stupid.

The horses lap the stupid up relentlessly because they like the stupid.

[Cosmocat]

93. oh, and democrats most assuredly are useless

the pols absolutely, the party leaders mostly, us, not worthless, but we don't vote like we should and are too willing to do in the better of the good for the idea of the likely unachievable.

[Maedhros]

79. Marketing and group psychology elect our leaders.[n/t]

[Cosmocat]

91. Yes, because people WANT to believe the bullshit

It isn't mass brainwashing, it isn't mind control, it isn't hypnosis ...

They know the stupid and they tap into it.

[Maedhros]

102. We don't educate our children to think for themselves, we simply educate them to regurgitate

what they've been told. Once they grow up, they don't have much interest in learning, which is a requirement of an informed electorate.

Consequently, citizens are easily swayed by propaganda.

[MaggieD]

69. Exactly!

And it is beyond sad that we have so many Democrats here acting just like Republicans.

[jeff47]

74. Being a little bit corrupt is still corrupt.

It's a little like the supposed "good cops". You can't cover for the bad cops and remain a "good cop".

The problem is not Clinton's record or lack thereof on her corruption. The problem is the party's overall not giving a fuck about fixing it. Which Clinton neatly fits into.

Wanna show you're willing to "clean up" the government? You're going to have to actually prosecute banks. And large corporations. And not just accept a settlement that is 10% of the profit they made from the corrupt acts.

You want to fix those Republican majorities? We're going to need a better party than status-quo Democrats, because status-quo Democrats are what created those Republican majorities.

[Cosmocat]

96. I can count on one hand the non status quo democrats in congress

And, there is not a republican in congress who isn't what you describe in full bloom ...

I agree with what you are saying fundamentally.

You are absolutely correct.

The problem here is myopia.

Same thing as people who want to get all high and mighty over PBHO not willing this country to single payer.

He is ONE person surrounded by 535 members of the equal branch - on his right by absolutely craven lunatics and on his left by spineless, cowardly scarecrows.

Hillary is not the savior.

The one person who can be president and be totally perfect AND single handidly control congress.

Given the overwhelmingly worthless lot at hand, it is like this mythical creature does not exist.

Again, though, what I am saying is the likely absence of this mythical creature, people might want to consider not playing the same game as the other team - creating some breathless hyperbole of how bad she is.

[jeff47]

110. Your solution is to accept the status quo.

Others find that unacceptable and are fighting to actually do what you claim you want. You call them variations on "dumb".

Just enjoy your shit sandwich. And stop whining about people pointing out the pretty bread doesn't make it something better.

[Cosmocat]

136. You missed the point by a pretty wide margin

But, it is pretty clear that what you WANT to think supersedes the actual discussion.

[jeff47]

137. Not at all. Your claim is politics is dominated by status quo candidates

so we must vote for status quo candidates.

Because otherwise....um....something-or-other. It's not really clear what the implied danger of opposing status quo is. We get...status quo?

[Cosmocat]

138. Yeah, missed by a wide margin

I didn't claim "politics is dominated by status quo candidates."

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I am saying.

Our politics is "dominated" by the stupid of the masses voting.

The pols are virtually irrelevant.

Your target, the pols, is the SYMPTOM, not the cause.

The root cause is us ...

People have been howling at the moon, the pols, since the first election.

You want to focus your attention properly, focus it on the mirror.

Not YOU SPECIFICALLY.

US.

[Autumn]

17. He nailed my thought and fears about Hillary.

Recommended and bookmarked

[Perseus]

22. Some cheap shots, in my opinion

"All across the world public anger over corruption now drives politics. Our politicians hardly mention it but our people care as much about it as anyone."
Compare the corruption in the Republican party to any on the Democratic party, this is a mute argument and one that can hurt more than help anyone. When you start making comparisons such as this within the party, and exclude the realities of the opposition, you turn the uneducated to think that the problem is only in one place when the corruption found in the other party (Republicans) is ten-fold.

"There’s an uptick in fear due to ISIS and Republicans do all they can to fan its flames."
There is a good article that I believe came out in the "Boston Globe" about the fake threats that mostly republicans keep selling to the American people. Democrats, instead of playing the game of bravado, show the people the farce of it all. Not sure this guy is addressing this issue but proposing a new strategy.

Om climate change he is right...of course that this is just my opinion.

[RiverLover]

25. Thanks Perseus. Good points.

Your opinion matters!! Appreciate you adding to the discussion here.

I agree that is a weak point given the rethug level of corruption. But perhaps he is speaking to low voter turn-out. I personally know of one Democratic couple who are great people, but they didn't vote this last time around because they're so disgusted that both parties are corrupt & don't work for us. I strenuously disagree with their decision, but that is a position by many people here in the US. However misguided. It needs to be addressed.

[asjr]

24. Mr Curry--if he does not think Hillary is good enough

I would suggest he run for president.

[merrily]

51. Save it for the Hillary Group or GD. Thanks.

[Maedhros]

80. The amount of whining over writers who criticize Hillary is comical.

Maybe they need a stamping foot smilie?

[Gamecock Lefty]

28. H 2016!

Oh look - it's the daily 'Hillary bad' thread.

Yawn . . .

[merrily]

54. Your kind of post is out of place in this group. Please save it for GD or the

Hillary Group. Thanks.

[Maedhros]

81. When a candidate is bad, there tend to be articles about how they are bad.

[JoePhilly]

34. When does the rebellion start?

[on point]

42. Completely spot on. Have to support this 100%

[bvar22]

65. DURec.

Worth the read.

[MaggieD]

67. There is not a single quote here....

That attaches these issues in a negative way to HRC policy positions. Sickens me that this site is devoted to slamming her day in and day out. Ridiculous.

[Rilgin]

77. Exactly which policy positions are those?

As far as I can tell, HRC has not taken any policy positions this year.

Statements such as (paraphrased) "I will be a fighter for the middle class" or identifications of problems within the areas of income inequality or climate change are NOT policy positions. They are just statements which are similar to the statements in the OP.

She says she will be a fighter. He says she has not been based on his experience, her past, and what he believes we need for the future. He expresses some other opinions about voters that are opinions and can not be wrong.

As far as HRC's past policy positions. Many of them were wrong and moved us on the wrong direction in the opinion of anyone who would agree with the OP. Again just a guess, but you would not want to address her past "policy positions" and many of her votes on war and peace issues, foreign policy, free trade, fracking, wall street, bankruptcy etc. Even her most progressive task in the Clinton White House (his attempt for health insurance reform) was private insurance based and not based on medicare. Those past votes and policy positions have been posted and discussed numerous times. Demanding them here was just disengenous. Address them where they have been discussed and explain why her votes and policies now will be different than what she has done in the past.

Ultimately, my belief is you will fall back on the argument of every other HRC supporter that I have seen: She is better than a republican.

HRC has good history on statements and votes on issues of women's equality which is a good (great ) thing but is not the only thing. All democrats would or should share those "policy positions" and goals but have better policies and goals for every other issue that should be of concern to democrats.

[MaggieD]

83. Really? You're just helpless to find those? Really?

She has been in public life for over 30 years. It is ridiculous to pretend she hasn't spoken out on most of these issues over her life in PUBLIC SERVICE.

Apparently this should keep you busy for awhile: http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Here she is on climate change: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-harry-reid-national-clean-energy-summit-110621.html

It's ludicrous to suggest she hasn't talked about government corruption since she did it near constantly as Sec State.

Here she is on economic inequality, which is where she has ALWAYS been on that issue: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-populist

Here is just one among hundreds of times she has staked out a position on national security, ISIS, etc. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/silicon-valley-hillary-clinton-115473.html

[Rilgin]

89. Again, Statements are not policy

She has spoken out on issues. I say that in my post. She says she will be a fighter for the middle class. She mentions income inequality now. She channels statements of EW. However, such statements are not the same thing as policy solutions to the problems mentioned.

In fact, to make it even more clear. Most republicans say they fight for the middle class. Its when they get to their policy solutions that they go wrong. The only thing Republicans have as policies is to lower taxes on the rich and promote deregulation. It is in the detail of their policies that republicans go very wrong. However, their public statements of what they want often is remarkably similar to most democrats because they too follow polls. It never hurts a politician to "say" they will fight for the middle class are for the environment or any number of things most people would want for society.

For example, right now, a lot of republicans are actually mentioning income inequality as an issue. This does not make their policies right. In fact, mentioning problems are never policies. They might indicate future policies but the devil is always in the details of what policies one supports to address a problem. As far as I know, HRC has not provided any policies on current problems. She may in the future and some may be good. Who knows.

Your links include a lot of statements and some links to her votes in 2004 to 2008. Factually, she is better than republicans. Some votes were good, some bad. Not all of them were good by a long shot. Cherry picking good or bad past policies or votes never leads to truth. She has a very mixed bag in her past.

However, regardless, none of your links state what her current policy solutions are to any of the current issues. Again, I will state, as far as I know she has not presented her current policy solutions to any of the problems facing us. It is good that she now mentions income inequality, but what are her policies to address the inequality?

Again it is disingenuous for you to bemoan the OP not addressing her policies if she has not put her current policy answers into public view. Statements and campaign rhetoric are not policies. When she releases some then ask for responses.

As to her past votes, statements, actions, policies, and issues. They are a mixed bag. There are some good issues for HRC. These are primarily in social issues. I believe she is a strong supporter and will have good policies on women's rights and sexual choices. I am pretty sure despite waffling in the past, she would be for lgbt rights since the polls show its no longer a problematic area.

On social issues, she seems to be pretty strong. On foreign policy and economics there is much to criticize in these past links you have mentioned. These have been discussed in many many many many many many many many posts. They do not need to be discussed in every single post. Moreover, those are in the past. They do not indicate her current policy in any area unless you want to say she is still for war in Iraq because she voted for it years ago.

[MaggieD]

92. So by that measure....

You'd have to say the same about Warren and Sanders, correct? All they have are statements as well, right?

So, are we going to turn this forum into bash Democrats 24/4 for the next year and a half?

IMHO, if this is how "Democrats" are going to act we are no better than republicans and their fact free bashing of anyone with a democratic party agenda.

[Rilgin]

104. Once more

I did not bash HRC. I did not mention Warren or Sanders at all except in the context that HRC has adapted some of EW's phrasing in her recent speeches. This could be a good thing depending on HRC's solutions to this problem when she actually develops or publishes some. However, I did not say anything about EW or Sander's current policies or their qualifications for office.

The only one bashing was you of the OP. I did point out that it was disingenuous of you to bash the OP by demanding he discuss policies that HRC has not released.

The OP discusses his concerns over HRC's past in the context of his OPINION on what he thinks we need now.

If you want to discuss HRC's past actions votes, you can find many threads where people discuss their specific problems with HRC's past actions, votes and speeches endlessly. My opinion is HRC has a record that is a mixed bag. I have even said this in my past three responses. I could find some good stuff in links put out by HRC supporters but also find great negatives in things they and presumably you would totally ignore.

Ultimately, I agree with the OPINION of the OP. She is a bad candidate for the democratic party in the current election cycle. That is the substance of the OP and what is being discussed. You want to turn this into a discussion of HRC's current policy positions in the 2016 election. However, since she has not put those out, you cant. I am sure you will find lots of people to discuss such positions when she does publish some.

Until she puts out specific solutions it is totally conjecture as to her current policies. if you want to see what supporters of the OP find troublesome in her past, there are plenty of posts and articles that mention specifics.

To humor you, one of your links is about a speech HRC gave showing her support for natural gas over oil presumably. There is a nod to it being a bridge to greener technologies. However, as the article (not me) notes she addresses these issues while "playing it safe". She says natural gas has problems but then supports it anyhow. She says America has the technology and resorts to that chestnut of it creates jobs. The speech if it is any indicator of her policies as president is that natural gas production will be increased.

There are two problems I have with her speech. First, natural gas is now being produced in quantity by the use of fracking technologies. Whether its a good speech or a bad speech for supporting HRC depends on your view of fracking. HRC has supported such fracking technologies in the past. In fact, there are recent articles showing her urging of fracking on foreign countries as the solution to energy issues during her tenure as SOS.

However, more to the point, if I want to hear a speech indicating future policies, I want it to support renewable energy. Not oil. Not natural gas. Not fracking. Not nuclear. I would like HRC or any candidate to discuss their policies to expand energy independance through wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Not a nod to play it safe. This speech is about expansion of natural gas as cleaner than oil but is not discussion of long term clean green energy solutions. My opinion is that we need a candidate that focuses on expanding renewables not the side track of increasing supplies of non-renewables as a "bridge".

That link of yours if it is an indicator of future policy shows HRC will support natural gas as the solution to our energy needs. She might support renewable energy as a goal but I do not see any policies in support of that bridge in this speech.

There, I discussed your links in the context of the orginal post. Again, till she actually releases policy all we have is opinions or speculation based on her past and that past is a very mixed bag.

[MaggieD]

107. His "opinion" has been wrong consistently

It would be great if people would evaluate the people whose opinions they latch on to. He's a Nader guy. If Curry gets an opportunity to bash a democrat he takes it.

[Rilgin]

111. Ok We came down to it

So you are bashing him not his post.

I dont know anything about his history nor is it relevant as to his current article.

The author may very well have been wrong about every single thing he has ever said before this. I either agree with his current article which lists the problems which some of us have with HRC's candidacy or I don't. More to the point, this is about HRC not the author of the article. Bashing the author of this article will not change the substance of his article which lists reason HRC as a candidate makes some people uncomfortable and gives some other opinions.

Further, as you are probably would want to agree with, being wrong does not seem to be fatal. Again, HRC was clearly wrong about the Iraq war. You would not have it be fatal to her candidacy for president.

I think she is a mixed bad, right and wrong but mostly politically safe. Her war votes turned out wrong. However, I do not think the real meaning of her IRAQ war vote was about her being wrong. I think she actually knew that Bush was going to war and the reasons were meaningless. I think her votes and speeches at the time were abouth er being political expedient.

As things turned out she made a bad judgement about both the policy and political expediency because it became clear over history how wrong the Iraq war was and how weak the claims of weapons of mass destruction were.

I knew about the weapons inspectors in iraq and the disputes about aluminum tubes at the time. I knew about all the problems with the intelligence presented as fact at the time. The CIA head of counter intelligence for Europe (Tyler Drumheller) has told us he reported that the sources used by the Bush administration were clearly corrupt. The weapons inspectors were telling us Iraq was cooperating and they were not finding weapons.

I believe she generally knew the Iraq war was being sold to us and made a political judgement to support it which turned out wrong. I think she probably believed it would be a successful foreign excursion and reveal Saddam to be a bad guy rather than reveal that the American people had been manipulated. I do not think she is a war monger per se. I think she is a status quo candidate who has made bad judgments that make her the wrong candidate for now.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. As far as climate change, we have Dems claiming they LOVE to burn coal.

[KoKo]

73. Recommend whole read...and he makes important points about the "Issues" we should discuss.

[MaggieD]

87. Bill Curry couldn't win as a Democrat in CONNECTICUT

... despite multiple attempts. I don't think you should take his advice about ANYTHING.

[KoKo]

94. What do you think "turned off" Dem Voters about him?

[MaggieD]

95. I can't speak for others....

But he threw Gore under the same bus, years ago, he is throwing HRC under now. I just think he's an asshole. Maybe the people of CT saw the same.

[KoKo]

99. Thanks... But, I still think he makes some great points....Although

if you think he is just another "Dem Op for Profit" ....I could understand that even though I agree with him.

I can understand your own reluctance.

[MaggieD]

101. He doesn't back up a single thing

... With facts. That might be another reason Dems in CT wouldnt vote for him. He did the same thing to Gore.

And that, my friend, is the path to a republican president in 2016. All they gotta do is convince a few million people to sit home because of some purity test no candidate can ever passs. Dumb if we fall for it. Again.

[blkmusclmachine]

97. Still "dead broke."

[blkmusclmachine]

98. URL: http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/1204060-clinton-viral-hmed-945a.grid-

Comments are my own.

[KoKo]

100. Can't get your link to work..do you have a better one?

Thanks.

[MaggieD]

108. You don't know they left the WH millons in debt?

They never had a pot to piss in until after Bill left office and was able to pick up speaking gigs (which pay damn well if you're an ex-president).

They were millions in debt due to personal legal fees that came from being hounded by republicans for 8 years about BS (and a BJ).

[ibewlu606]

106. Kicked!

Great article, speaks truth to the corrupt.

[Thespian2]

112. K & R !!!

Thanks, RiverLover

[pansypoo53219]

113. when we are 1 supreme away from turning the rightward slide since REAGAN. THE ONLY THING THAT

MATTERS TO ME IS WINNING. and NEVER ANOTHER GODDAMN BUSH. i am not gonna complain cause i will NEVER get the president I want cause the teevee gnewz would NEVER ALLOW another FDR a chance. but by STEALTH.
STRATEGY.