Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton has always been to Obama's left on economics [View all]hfojvt
(37,573 posts)75. my video says different
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869
There's Hillary opposing an increase in the Social security cap, because it would be a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class".
Yeah, the middle class - people who make over $97,000 a year.
Your link talks about "voting record" but then just says "more liberal" without saying if it is talking about economics or some wider definition of liberal.
Also, liberals were in favor of an insurance mandate? Really? That's the liberal position?
Count me out of that.
Of course, I remember watching primary debates and they spent like the first hour talking about foreign policy and barely bothered with economics. So at the time, we had two options a) Hillary, who we knew to be DLC, or b) Obama, who we hoped was gonna change the Democratic Party.
Much to our chagrin, Obama proved to be just as DLC as Clinton would have been.
But now we are supposed to believe she's always been a warrior for the working class?
There's Hillary opposing an increase in the Social security cap, because it would be a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class".
Yeah, the middle class - people who make over $97,000 a year.
Your link talks about "voting record" but then just says "more liberal" without saying if it is talking about economics or some wider definition of liberal.
Also, liberals were in favor of an insurance mandate? Really? That's the liberal position?
Count me out of that.
Of course, I remember watching primary debates and they spent like the first hour talking about foreign policy and barely bothered with economics. So at the time, we had two options a) Hillary, who we knew to be DLC, or b) Obama, who we hoped was gonna change the Democratic Party.
Much to our chagrin, Obama proved to be just as DLC as Clinton would have been.
But now we are supposed to believe she's always been a warrior for the working class?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
people forget that in the debate over the health insurance mandate, Clinton attacked Obama
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#2
To mandate that you buy insurance from a Private Insurer is THE Republican plan
Rilgin
Jun 2015
#109
No. But in the realm of what is realistically possible it doesn't matter.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2015
#16
You just need to be realistic. Just because everybody loves him and would vote for him
Ed Suspicious
Jun 2015
#68
Does DU play a role in influencing the American electorate or are we just sitting around
Ed Suspicious
Jun 2015
#83
Since we are talking about circle jerks I would literally bet my d--k on the latter.../NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2015
#95
That's like saying Hillary Clinton beats every Republican by fifty points...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2015
#54
all of those- Warren, Sanders, Stiglitz strongly oppose the TPP. She endorsed it in her book.
cali
Jun 2015
#7
If she wants credit for what her husband did then she must also take accountability for it.
Exilednight
Jun 2015
#33
but the banks that caused the financial meltdown wouldn't have been subject to it.
wyldwolf
Jun 2015
#55
I was quoting Forbes. Steven Pearlstein more acceptable? And Elizabeth Warren's quote?
wyldwolf
Jun 2015
#82
I was going for an answer that was easily understandable, but that sums it up nicely.
Exilednight
Jun 2015
#108
Well, he is a former president, he has the experience and he's a notorious know-it-all
tularetom
Jun 2015
#97
Hillary's words, not mine. SHE claimed her husbands record, I did not force it on her.
Exilednight
Jun 2015
#34
she will give the DLC answer, which is always like a judge trying to please a rapist and his victim
yurbud
Jun 2015
#69
"She's been in the public eye far too long to have avoided inconsistencies over the years."
Damansarajaya
Jun 2015
#21
Time. Folks are impatient. Obama was just the start of the revolution, Clinton will succeed Obama and
Fred Sanders
Jun 2015
#25
What "revolution"? Obama is a proud defender of the status quo, not a revolutionary...
truebluegreen
Jun 2015
#66
Actual revolutions are incredibly rare historically and almost inevitably lead to violence
YoungDemCA
Jun 2015
#70
'especially for a candidate who's not facing meaningful opposition in the Democratic primary'
elleng
Jun 2015
#32
That could very well be. Her husband on the other hand sure wasn't, and I suspect a lot of the
still_one
Jun 2015
#40
I don't believe there is any significant difference between Hillary and Obama economicly.
Autumn
Jun 2015
#42
Have you seen the standard bearers on the other side...give your head a shake, dude?!
Fred Sanders
Jun 2015
#117
Respect demands a mutual return. The left who has been the most loyal since Roosevelt
mmonk
Jun 2015
#98
Both BHO and HRC have been well within in the main stream of Democratic thought.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2015
#102
Obama won because he ran to her left. Clinton's Iraq vote and her continued use of strong
Jefferson23
Jun 2015
#110