The Clintons are much bigger GOP sellouts than Obama.

[Armstead]

One of the many bits of disinformation that is floated and repeated endlessly is that Obama is a closet Republican, while Hillary is a Real Democrat who will fight against the Republicans tooth and nail.

Bunk. Bullshit. Nonsense. Foolishness.

Neither candidate is what I believe a Democratic ought to be ideally. They're both too conservative for my tastes. I would prefer the nominee to be reflecting the message and approach of John Edwards, Paul Wellstone, Bernie Sanders and other progressives of that ilk.

But the claims of the Clintons that Obama is too much of a collaborator with Republicans while Hillary would fight for Democratic principles is totally misleading and historically contradictory.

The only way that Hillary could ever make such a claim, and mean it , would be to reject her own past, and to politically divorce herself from Bill.

Sure she talks a good game. And on the level of symbolic partisanship, she does do a good job of exploiting the cosmetic polarization that exists. But only on matters that don't involve actual systemic issues, such as the dominance by Corporate Power.

Bill Clinton made his national bones as a Conservative Democrat who would put "the left" in their place while strengthening the ties between the Democratic Party and Wall St. and Big Business. His administration was all about either giving in to Republicans or actively supporting and pushing through the same neo-liberal "free-market" Alan Greenspan/Milton Friedman agenda as the GOP. Clinton also sold us out on social issues such as Welfare Deform.

And during the administration of GW, the Clintons helped to surpress the Democratic Party's opposition to GW and Republicans, and supported such GOP projects as the War On Iraq.

Personally, I honestly don't know what Obama would do over time if he becomes president. I don't know if he'd ultimately sell us out in the long run like the Clintons did, or if he would actually bring a new brand of politics that advances liberalism and progressive reform in a way that has broad appeal. Currently, I'm gambling on the latter possibility.

In any case, those who toss around the notion that the Clintons are the honest heartfelt opposition to the GOP on matters that count ought to reconsider that inaccurate meme.

[TexasObserver]

1. Agreed. K and R.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. So, how do you know all this?

Wait, wait, I've heard it before -- "Everybody knows."

--p!

[Armstead]

3. Got an hour or two?

I could give you a lot of specifics if we had enough time.

NAFTA and other aspects of the "free trade" agenda, deregulation, privitization, TelCom Deregulation, "small goverment," Welfare Deform, Iraq Qar, Sister Soljah, Dick Morris.....the list goes on and on

[Neecy]

8. here's a few more...

The WTO, DOMA, the Lincoln Bedroom for big-money donor$....

[Dogmudgeon]

20. You're serious about that?

NAFTA, Welfare Deform, Sister Soljah, Dick Morris ...

BILL Clinton. He isn't running.

If you think they should be considered as a two-headed monster, there's a bridge in Massachussetts I want to show you.

'the "free trade" agenda, deregulation, privitization, TelCom Deregulation, "small goverment,"' -- sounds like a lot of Obama's agenda, too.

Iraq Qar

Huh?

--p!

[Armstead]

28. Please reread my OP

I said Obama is a gamble in some ways.

But Hillary keeps touting her "experience" of which the largest chunk is a partnership with her husband. So if she wants to be associated with Bill, she's got to accept all that goes with his term.

[Dogmudgeon]

38. So that's a rhetorical move?

You claim Hillary is running on Bill's record, so that's why you assume that it will be the same thing?

But there is no evidence that the Hillary Clinton Administration will be a rerun. (There never is.)

You set up the strawman, you burn it down, and expect people to accept it as a true and accurate explanation of Hillary Clinton's proposals.

If you want to control the information environment, at least have a better reason than "she deserves to be hoist on her own petard".

--p!

[hfojvt]

24. isn't it all chronicled in your journal?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/73

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/72

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/70

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62

Whoops. That's my journal, shameless self-promoter that I am. The point is also, that Everybody doesn't know. Which is why it is important to spread the word.

[Armstead]

29. I'm lazy about journal thingies

I think my last enmtry was probably late 2006 or early 2007

[hfojvt]

35. it was October 2006. you should add this OP to your journal

I get notice of some good posts because the journal entries of my buddy list show up when I hit "my DU" to check if I have any replies.

[Armstead]

36. Gee I forgot how easy that is

Thanks

[Neecy]

4. he gave specifics

I haven't seen even her most ardent supporters try to claim she's liberal on anything, really, except possibly choice. And almost all Democrats are.

[fascisthunter]

6. Well... by Reading Posts from Her Supporters

on many issues, I have come to that conclusion.

[DJ13]

5. K&R

[blm]

7. Dems also need to ask themselves one simple question: Why was a Bush2 even possible?

Given the rampant corruption and illegal operations that caused everything from crack epidemics in our cities to 9-11, how was a Bush2 even possible when a few honest Democrats in DC had Bush1 and his cronies cornered and at their weakest point by Jan 1993?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Armstead]

9. Or why was a Bush 2 able to cause such damage so quickly?

[AntiFascist]

17. BCCI? n/t

[cyclezealot]

10. Some of us don't particularily like either.

Is it not Obama who talks of compromise with the Republicans . what does that mean. So, we who now sit on the side lines must passively endure this silly race. Because Krugman says Hillary's healthcare plan is slightly better, maybe we favor her. ??/ So, since none of us are going to get all we want, do we so foul our nest ; all loose. ?

[magatte]

11. Obama is not talking about compromise, but about a NEW progressive majority.

He appeals to the ordinary citizen that share his goals for the nation, be they Republican, Democrats or Independent. And armed with this majority he will be able to gain the (forced) support from Republicans in Washington.

That has been his whole philosophy. Change coming from the bottom.

This is how he will fight: ....He explains it quite clearly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XLyQNJsCv0

[jacksonian]

16. cute quote

problem is, that's exactly what the Clintons have been bashed for - they tried to work with Repugs and it didn't work. The Repugs will do anything not to share power, it's their mantra.

Listen to that quote on youtube. Now ask yourself, what happens when he can't push these forces out of the way, when the numbers aren't so good?

Bargaining works better from stength.

[cyclezealot]

22. The Republicans are so corporate, it will be war.

Talk sounds nice, but I predict the corporate GOP will cream him. They will hit him like a ton of bricks. Or else he is under corporate domination and compromise will be on their terms . We need a fighter.

[Armstead]

27. We currently have two choices

As I said in my OP, personally I'd prefer to see a real fighter who lays out the real divide in terms of wealth and power.

But it is what it is.

[magatte]

12. Obama is not talking about compromise, but about a NEW progressive majority.

He appeals to the ordinary citizen that share his goals for the nation, be they Republican, Democrats or Independent. And armed with this majority he will be able to gain the (forced) support from Republicans in Washington.

That has been his whole philosophy. Change coming from the bottom.

This is how he will fight: ....He explains it quite clearly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XLyQNJsCv0

[rodeodance]

30. i do not consider Repugs progressive

[Armstead]

31. Depends on the Repubs and the issue

It is a mistake to paint evenyone with a certain party label as being uniformly unprogressive or as being unable to come to some kind of concensus.

Ron Paul, for example, is about as Repugnant as they come on domestic issues. But on the issue of the Iraq War and related issues of imperialism and interventionism, he's a lot closer to anti-war progressives than many Democrats....Pat Buchanan is a creep on many issues, but he "gets it" about the"free trade" scam much more than neo-liberal Democrats do.

Several states that voted for GW Bush in 04 also voted to increase the state's minimum wage.

[kestrel91316]

13. You know, it would help if you put quotation marks around your OP

subject line. You wouldn't want anybody to think that's YOUR words.

[Armstead]

19. You mean what exactly?

[kestrel91316]

25. Your OP's subject line. I believe you are quoting someone else.

Or maybe I misunderstood something.

Nevermind. I've got a migraine today and am getting muddleheaded.

[Armstead]

34. Words are my own -- But the idea isn't original

[hfojvt]

14. But Republicans hate them!

Plus, Family and Medical Leave act, and prosperity and low gas prices. Everyone was rich and happy under Clinton. He's the greatest President of the last 40 years.


I don't believe that. I just wanted to be the first to say it.

Unfortunately, they have Krugman at the NY Times pushing that meme along with their own campaign. Hillary is selling herself as an anti-war populist in order to win the primary. While at the same time, not committing to specific proposals, except for Edwards' health care plan.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. LoL

[Radical Activist]

18. There's nothing conservative about Obama.

He has the most liberal record of any candidate who ran this year outside of Kucinich. Somebody's tortured misinterpretation of his theme about unity doesn't make Obama a conservative.

[Armstead]

23. I said more conservative than I'd prefer

But I won't quibble, as I am addressing the phony claim that the Clintons are more inclined to fight the GOP.

[rodeodance]

21. oh good gawd--Now we are into Who is the biggest sellout???

[Armstead]

26. That's what the Clintons are claiming about Obama

Not the idea basis for political discourse, but I got sick of seeing this meme being constantly repeated against Obama.

[bvar22]

32. At this point,

Obama seems to be the lesser or two Conservative Democratic evils.

Make no mistake, Campaign 2008 was a crushing defeat for Liberals/Progressives.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Armstead]

33. Great picture and quote of Wellstone

I don't disagree. But I do think Obama would be less of a Vichy Democrat.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. What a ringing endorsement

One is a tad bit less of a sellout than the other. :eyes:


I kid. It's just as an uncommitted who is likely to write in someone, I found your title a tad ironic. :)

[Armstead]

39. Well it is a sad commentary, I must admit