Hillary is Third Way & a "Stinkbomb into Liberals"

[RiverLover]

I'm with this guy~

Friday, Oct 24, 2014 06:58 AM EDT
“A stink bomb into liberals’ certainty”: Doug Henwood on his anti-Clinton crusade
Leftist economist, host and author talks about his controversial new brief for Harper's opposing a Clinton '16 bid

"...One of my critiques of her is that she has a lot to do with the evolution of the Democratic Party over the last 20 to 25 years. She was very closely involved with Bill’s creation of the whole New Democrat movement, the DLC; she was very tightly involved with Tony Blair and the international version of [the New Democrat style], the “Third Way.” So she’s very much a part of that center-to-right-wing move of the Democrats. And it’s deeply unfortunate.

Whatever novelty that approach might have had in 1992, this is really not the kind of politics we need for our present situation, which is: structural economic stagnation, polarization, climate change and all these very profound structural challenges [and] I think the “business as usual” [approach] that Hillary and much of her party represents is not up to the task.

So it is a critique of her — in the article I mention her own dishonesty and deviousness … — but it’s also the times, it’s the party; and I think we need to break out of those in some way."

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/a_stink_bomb_into_liberals_certainty_doug_henwood_on_his_anti_clinton_crusade/

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Third Way is real and not some made up ghost by "some crazies here on DU."

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[TheNutcracker]

2. Me too, Kick! Florida just went through the third way race, it was a disaster!

[hrmjustin]

3. I like her and support her for president as does a majority of Democrats according to the polls.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. You need a new talking point.

First off, The Party Faithful doesn't need to be convinced. They'd vote for a rancid turnip if it had a D next to it's name. The problem is that NO ONE ELSE WILL. Secondly, it's TWO YEARS OUT. No poll has any validity two years out. Did you guys really learn absolutely NOTHING from the last election? Doubling down on a loser strategy doesn't make you win, it makes you stupid.

[hrmjustin]

14. You are calling me stupid?

[hrmjustin]

130. You are calling me stupid?

[hrmjustin]

136. You can at least tell me why you think I am stupid.

[belzabubba333]

16. i'll take a democratic rancid turnip over harvard's g.w.bush anyday

[Le Taz Hot]

18. ORRRRR

we could recruit a populist Democrat and clean Wall Street's clock in the 2016 elections.

[belzabubba333]

27. assuming the populist Democrat would win a general election

[Le Taz Hot]

32. She absolutely would.

She'd win on the issues and her populist message which are REAL cross-over messages.

[belzabubba333]

34. are u refering to elizabeth warren who is not running?

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Yes, are you referring to Hillary Clinton

who, as of this date, is also not running?

[belzabubba333]

40. yes but i'd vote for either one. how effective do u think ew would be with this congress?

[Le Taz Hot]

47. Was that English

'cause all I can make out is your first sentence.

[belzabubba333]

62. yes it is

[Alittleliberal]

65. Because our current centrist president was so effective with this congress?

[belzabubba333]

67. that's my ponit

however the map shows dems are in for a wave in 2016 and if that's the case and we get both houses and elizabeth warren as potus well that could be very good

[LawDeeDah]

101. I suppose you didn't hear about McTurtle's promise right after the President's

inaugeration. That the number one goal for the baggers and shitstainers was to knee cap Obama at every point and turn and make his a failed Presidency, at any cost.

And yet you put the entire blame on the President. Noted.

[Alittleliberal]

118. You clearly didn't understand my point.

It's not this presidents fault, but if the republicans won't even work with a practical centrist then we should be running liberals. They aren't going to work with us whether we elect moderates or liberals.

[tooeyeten]

29. We need a winner @ the polls n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

39. In 2006, how many people had heard of Barack Obama?

I'm guessing that, other than party wonks, less than 2% of the nation had ever heard of him. In 2006 Hillary also led in the polls and Obama wasn't even a blip on the radar screen. Elizabeth Warren has had a WHOLE lot more exposure, particularly with YouTube posting her Banking Committee showdowns with the banksters and "regulators." The point is that polling in 2006 had NOTHING to do with what happened in 2008. The same applies with 2014/2016. People recognize Hillary's name, that's it.

[A Simple Game]

23. Leave poor Hillary alone, it won't be her fault when she loses to Ted Cruz or some other

Republican idiot. It will be the voters fault, or the liberals fault, or the millennials fault, etc. As long as the candidate has a D after their name it can't be the candidates fault.

Funny how that works, if a Republican loses it's because they were not good enough, couldn't excite the voters, or had the wrong ideas, but if a Democrat loses it's because of the lack of support from everyone but the conservative branch of the Democratic party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Yeah, Clintons have a long record of losing to Republicans

I believe, if you count impeachment, where they clowned them,they are 9-1 against them. If they were a sports team, ceteris paribus, they would be favored to win their eleventh.

Thank you.

[A Simple Game]

42. Funny I don't think Hillary even qualified for the race last time.

Remember that race, the one she was born to win? The one where she lost to an unknown. The one where she wasn't good enough for even her own party. It seems that maybe people do pay attention after all.

Or do non-starts not count?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Moving the goalposts early

You said Teddy Cruz , the Republican senator from the Lone Star State, can whup her...I demonstrated the Clinton record against the Republicans is stellar. Nothing you wrote undermines my observation.

[A Simple Game]

73. Did I move the goalposts or did the American people move the goalposts? Time will tell. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

178. Hillary Clinton has never won a seriously contested election.

[leftofcool]

41. So, we should recruit Lizzie W?

You bet, then the entire NA population can climb all over her ass for claiming to be a tribal member when she is not. If you think this won't make a difference, you are wrong. She has been asked by the Cherokee Tribe to explain, to publically apologize for her claim and she has been denied by this same Tribe. She has been blasted and condemned in every NDN forum that I personally belong to and there are many. All she has done so far on this problem is hedge. This will be run in every main steam media on the planet and will be an issue she will have to confront. I like Liz Warren, but if she will lie about this, what else has she lied about? Real estate deals in Oklahoma maybe? Just sayin.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. The Riight Wing would attack Jesus Christ himself

if he ran as a Democrat. Hillary has a list of negatives as long as California. SHE CAN'T WIN. Her ONLY support is with Wall Street and the Party Faithful. This last election was a perfect example of, if the electorate is offered up Republican and Republican-Lite they will choose Republican every time or stay home.

So far all you guys have on Senator Warren is, a) she's not Native American and b) she used to be a Republican. If that's all you have then it's going to be a LONG campaign (should she decide to run).

[NordicLeft]

163. +100

[blackspade]

72. Weak sauce.

If that's all you have, the Warren will do fine.

[leftofcool]

116. Might be best to do a bit more vetting.

The rethug crowd will tear her to pieces over real estate deals. She won't deserve it but they will do it.

[sulphurdunn]

152. Warren has never claimed

to be a tribal member of the Cherokee nation. As to her heredity, that could be resolved easily enough with a DNA test, which would show that her bloodline is red, yellow, black and white, just like yours and mine. The only issue, I suppose, would be over how much is red. How red does it need to be?

[Thinkingabout]

53. Name issues you think is stupid in the DLC.

No, we do not have to be convinced, yes the smart way is the DLC to run a nation. What was we supposed to learn from the last election? What the non voters are going to learn is staying at home has consequences, one they will not appreciate in the future years. Think the republicans are going to fight for their progressive ideas, no, and they have removed support from congress which some of the progressive issues as a part of their issues also. So thank non voters.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. If you guys didn't learn your lesson

from this last election, that the problem is not the voters, the problem is that NO ONE is standing up for the middle class and the poor, then nothing I say will ever convince you otherwise.

[Thinkingabout]

113. What is stupid in the DLC issues?

When I see only one third of the eligible voters voted, it is a problem. The middle class is going to have to stand up for themselves, in the voting booths. If candidates who share our same positions on issues are not elected then there will not be anyone standing up for the middle class. Two thirds of eligible decided to stay home and more republicans were elected, now what part of standing up for middle class did they not understand. If people did not vote then they need to accept their lack of interest in their issues, don't bitch and cry when the republicans elected does not cater to the middle class. Elections has consequences, this is one.

[reACTIONary]

158. +10 (nt)

[2banon]

70. Every Issue - You Name It - Every Single Issue Third Way is deeply rooted in Neo-Conservative ideas.

Every Single Issue.

[Thinkingabout]

114. Name one.

[2banon]

117. Seriously? You want Blue Links too?

[Thinkingabout]

135. I would like to know which issue you think is stupid, I am not sure many people knows

What the DLC is and what they think is important. Surely you know of an issue you think is so wrong

[yurbud]

186. how about education reform? repetitive standardized testing, privatization, busting teachers unions

and replacing them with short term Teach For America temps, letting vendors dictate curriculum and on and on.

All things that the wealthy would not tolerate for their own children.

And Obama can't blame Republicans for twisting his arm on this.

He picked a Secretary of Education who was committed to this agenda and fully backed his actions.

[Thinkingabout]

187. Here you are

In the Information Age, a good education is the key to equal opportunity and upward mobility for every American.

But as the educational needs of our people rise, the educational performance of our schools continues to stagnate or even drop. While adequate resources for schools are important, money alone is not the answer: per capita spending on public schools (adjusted for inflation) rose 40 percent in the last 15 years.
New Democrats believe no national priority is more urgent than reforming public education to produce sharply improved results in the skills and knowledge of every student. Far too many Americans, and America as a whole, cannot prosper in the Information Age with today's levels of learning.
There are three keys to lifting the performance of public schools.
•High standards that make it clear exactly what skills and knowledge each child should master at key stages between kindergarten and graduation. Since basic skills do not vary by geography, national standards make sense. Where states set standards, they should cover all five core subjects English, history, math, science and geography and should be aligned with national and international benchmarks.


• Choice and competition among public schools to stimulate innovation and to ensure that parents have options when schools don't do an adequate job. Charter schools, which are allowed to innovate beyond traditional models of education in exchange for achieving high educational results, should become the rule, not just the exception, in public education. All schools receiving public funds should become disciplined learning places, and alternatives should be supplied for students who cannot function in regular classrooms.


•Accountability
for results for schools, teachers, and students to make higher standards real and make choice and competition work. Schools that can't produce results should be closed if necessary. Principals and teachers should be recruited on the basis of talent and subject-matter knowledge, not just education-school credentials, and should be rewarded on the basis of merit, not just seniority. "Social promotion" should be abolished. Students should be promoted only if they pass competency tests based on high standards, and should be offered summer school to "catch up" until they do.
All three of these elements are essential for education reform. For example, the conservative effort to privatize K-12 education through vouchers or other forms of no-strings public support for private schools focuses on choice and competition, but without the standards or accountability that make choice and competition meaningful.
New Democrats believe educational results, not educational spending, is the measure of our dedication to public schools.

[yurbud]

188. closing schools doesn't help anyone and in practice, DLCers actions on this are

indistinguishable from Republicans.

Likewise, a politically connected contractor is going to get a lot more slack on "accountability" than a regular public school.

Even charters that are non-profits figure out ways to bilk taxpayers like paying execs far more than public school administrators with comparable responsibilities, and making deals with for-profit contractors that again divert our taxpayer dollars into corporate profits.

[yurbud]

189. the rhetoric of accountability is used to "prove" public schools are failing and

give their funding to the private sector.

The model seems to be the Department of Defense, with overpaid fat cat contractors building toys and delivering some services, and soldiers (teachers) on food stamps.

Less charitably, it looks a hell of a lot like an Enron scam, with shell companies, three card monte, and political insiders getting fire sale prices on public assets.

[yurbud]

190. if Third Way/DLCers really believed in this model of education...

they would want the contractors to set up private schools, entirely independent of public funding first, and run under the same rules they propose for charters and the same testing regime they want to impose on public schools, attract the children of the wealthy as pupils, including the children of the politicians who back this agenda, and prove that their model works before allowing them to impose it on middle class and poor kids and giving them our tax dollars to do so.

[Thinkingabout]

191. Looks like you are not for better education, at least the DLC wants to improve education,

think I will stay with the DLC, improving education is not bad for middle class, the 1% can send their kids to private schools, who would be the losers in not improving education, the middle class.

[yurbud]

192. why not listen to educators instead of hedge fund managers and Wall Street scammers?

You don't go to a stethoscope or scalpel company when you are sick--you go to a doctor.

Teachers and education academics are pretty clear on what we need to help kids: smaller class size, school based social services to make up for poverty and community dysfunction, and treating teachers like professionals instead of disposable burger flippers to attract and retain the best teachers.

I prefer to improve education in ways that don't involve making the rich richer

[Thinkingabout]

194. Perhaps you do not know who you are addressing.

The 1% are sending their kids to private schools. The problems you mention has been occurring for years. At one time there was the whole school, every grade in the same classroom and the teacher was expected to teach all, one teacher.

[yurbud]

195. who are you, Arne Duncan?

[yurbud]

193. Do you think the only way to improve public schools is make the rich richer?

[hootinholler]

125. First the DLC is no more, they folded...

They folded shortly after the Koch Industries connection was published and the well they contribute to both sides damage control failed.

As to issues, Welfare Reform (they passed it under Bill) did incredible harm to the poor. I know personally, my sister was harmed by that.

Now there's "Entitlement Reform" where they are going after Social Security.

Also the move to privatize education.

Then there's Profitable Prisons.

Many more those are just off the top of my thoughts.

[stevenleser]

121. No, he doesn't. The truth doesn't need "a new talking point". nt

[hrmjustin]

126. No there is no answer given.

I know the polls will change but a clear majority of our party supports her.

I guess we are all third wsyers according to some here.

[Rose Siding]

25. I do too.

But subject lines with name calling or inflammatory rhetoric win recs and that will be the stock and trade here through the primaries.

[hrmjustin]

49. I guess I got to get used to the fact that supporting Hillary is not going to be popular here.

I see third wayer shills have been thrown around on DU. I wonder if that includes lifetime Democrats who like Hillary.

I am not looking foward to this primary fight.

[still_one]

74. Lyndon Johnson who gave us the civil rights act and Medicare would have been considered a third way

Democrat because of his Viet Nam War and international policy by many here I suspect.

The prism that most look through here never look at the full picture, but only what satisfies their view of the world, whether that view is blurred or not.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee for President.

The names many keep pushing here are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren has made it very clear that she will not run for President in 2016. Some folks don't seem to take her at her word on that. Bernie Sanders has given strong implications that he may run, and the same is true for Hillary Clinton.

The only way Bernie has a chance is if he joins the Democratic party, but within the Democratic party at this time the odds favor Hillary Clinton as the nominee if she chooses to run.

The only other Democrat that has shown interest at this time has been Jim Webb.

No matter who is the Democratic nominee, it will not be an easy election. The odds favor a jeb bush nomination on the republican side, but there is no doubt in my mind that Rand Paul is going to shake up things with the republicans, and with their tea party they will have their challenges also.

It looks like 2016 may follow the supposed Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times"

[Le Taz Hot]

78. Lyndon Johnson didn't "give" us anything.

We fought for it and the only reason the Civil Rights Act passed was out of deference to the assassination of Kennedy. Yes, we were able to get Medicare passed because, guess what, there were LIBERAL Sin the Senate and in the House -- they hadn't been run out of town yet. That was to happen 30 years later. in 1965 there weren't massive amounts of "Democrats" with Wall Street money and lobbying for their issues just as much as the Republicans. There was actually a difference between the parties.

You guys can run all you want from the real issues, and you will because to you guys, this last election wasn't because the Democrats continue to abandon the middle-class and the poor, it was because of the lazy voters and ponies. You guys will never learn.

[still_one]

95. no surprise that would come from you, a rewrite of history that I lived through

[Le Taz Hot]

98. I lived through it, too

and one of us is trying to rewrite history and make Johnson the Messiah but it's not me.

[still_one]

100. and neither was John Kennedy who almost got us into WWIII, along with the bay of pigs

starting our involvement in Viet Nam, etc. Looks like you won't be voting for the Democratic nominee, because it is going to be Hillary

If it wasn't for Johnson there would NOT have been a civil rights act because the South would not have gone for it without his influence

[Le Taz Hot]

104. I've no idea what you are refering to when you say

"he almost got us into WWIII." Is that the Bay of Pigs that was the product of the Eisenhower Administration that he inherited or is that the Cuban Missile Crisis in which he held firm against he Hawks who were actually planning a coup if he didn't attack Cuba and Russia? He de-escalated the situation by sacrificing old missiles in Turkey and here we are today.

He didn't screw up Social Security and our involvement in Viet Nam began in the Eisenhower Administration which was the first to send in Advisors based upon the war hawks (John Foster Dulles) recommendations. Before he died he was seriously re-thinking our involvement in Viet Nam.

Man, you might have been there but you I'm thinkin' you might have been too busy playing with G.I. Joe's to have been paying attention, much less have a thorough understanding of the dynamics within the events. The fact that you gave Johnson SOLE credit for the Civil Rights Act proves my point.

[still_one]

106. bullshit. Are you aware of the missiles Kennedy was putting into Turkey? Have you ever heard of

domino principle? At that time Kennedy was a strong advocate of it.

The social security was a screw up from my stupid keyboard buffer, you may not believe it but that is the truth. I have corrected that mistake, but obviously not quick enough. Eisenhower had nothing to do with it, in fact warned against expansion into Nam. It was Kennedy that sent the advisors into Nam, and approved the assassination of Diem.

If it wasn't for Johnson the Southern Democrats, who were racist, would have never gone for the the civil rights act. In fact, the republicans at that time represented less racist then the Southern Democrats.

You do realize it was Johnson's Civil Rights act that was the premise for Nixon's southern strategy, and why the parties shifted position in the south on race don't you?

[Le Taz Hot]

107. You are simply wrong

about Viet Nam. Please. Do yourself a favor and look it up. Do a Google Search with Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles and Viet Nam. It's easily remedied.

All the rest is pedantic.

[still_one]

109. Read the Pentagon Papers. It was very superficial what Eisenhower did, Kennedy pushed that policy

to its full extent:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kennedy_vietnam.htm

Regardless, both of us see history different. Take care

[still_one]

102. Never said he was the Messiah, I lost friends in Nam because of that bullshit, but to deny what he

did, including appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the Great Society, Medicare, and yes, the civil rights act, is ignorance, pure and simple

[Le Taz Hot]

105. You pointed to the Civil Rights Act

as if he was solely responsible for it's passage. He wasn't. MILLIONS marched and worked their fingers to the bone and, yes, died, for that Act. I never said he was the devil and I acknowledge his appointment of Marshall, the Great Society and Medicare but, for the THIRD TIME, he was NOT SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

Now, move the bar again.

[still_one]

129. No one is solely responsible for anything, and I never said that you thought

Everything he did was bad.

my point is simply that people are more complex than a simple label, liberal, conservative, third way Democrats

Good discussion

[heaven05]

52. something about our political party

IS NOT RIGHT! We are not getting the representation we deserve and need....Speak for yourself. Maybe that majority can put enough pressure on her and the 'third wayers' to change our Party back to our Party and not the banks and corporations Party? I don't hold out much hope of that happening, too much money(corruption) involved for everyday people to have much say in Party leadership. Just look at Wasserman and Emanuel. They rule!.

[blackspade]

68. For now.

That won't continue.
HRC will not pass muster just like in 2008.

[stevenleser]

122. Yep, they keep running into that problem and have no answer for it, do they? nt

[joeybee12]

142. So do I...she has lots of flaws...

But the hatred here is sheer lunacy.

[hrmjustin]

144. And to the point of name calling to her supporters here now.

[joeybee12]

145. They don't seem to realize this place doesn't represent most Dems...

And Hilary is well-liked by a lot...they should spend more time figuring out how to get her to move left when/if she's nominated...

[hrmjustin]

146. Good point. i eould like to see her move left as well on some things.

[joeybee12]

147. Hilary's no fool, she knows which way the wind is blowing...

And despite this horrible last Tuesday, the country really is going left...the Dems just didn't get that message and people didn't believe they were on their side and therefore didn't vote for them.

[hrmjustin]

148. And not defending the president turned off a lot of democrats.

[joshcryer]

164. She was left of Obama in 2008.

People didn't notice.

[AtomicKitten]

166. Sure if you exclude her IWR vote and

hubris about annihilating Iran. Fortunately the majority of voters didn't give her that free pass.

[reACTIONary]

154. Like her, support her too (nt)

[hrmjustin]

155. .

[rhett o rick]

161. Then you must be happy with what's happening to our country. She isn't a friend of the 99%

and you know that. She represents Wall Street. Why don't you take a chance and support someone that will work with the people and not the corporations.

[hrmjustin]

172. I made my choice. i think she is the best qualified and most electable.

If other candidates want my vote they have to convince me they are ready and can win.

[sabrina 1]

162. The majority of Democrats do not support her. What is left of the Dem Party that is.

Did you know that only 32% of voters now register as Dems? Why is that, because of the DLC/Third Way takeover of the party, where Third Way policies were implemented during the Clinton administration.

This is a woman who voted for Bush policies over and over again.

She refused to come right out and condemn torture, using the long ago debunked 'ticking time bomb' myth to make the case for 'sometimes torture is okay'.

II could go on, but if Hillary runs, we will lose.

[stonecutter357]

167. .

[hrmjustin]

169. How do you know that a majority does not support her?

[sabrina 1]

173. Well, one way is that when she is up against someone like Warren, she loses

Since we are constantly being pushed into accepting her the polls being cited do not include any other candidates. The respondents are all registered Dems. So of course if you as a Dem are asked whether you support a Dem candidate over a Republican, you are going to choose the Dem, even if you are not happy at all with being given only one choice.

Not to mention that to win an election for the WH, you need more than just the loyal party members, you need Independents and some cross over voters.

Since at least 40% of voters now identify as Independents, many former Dems disgusted by the right wing swing of the Dem party, has anyone polled THEM yet on Hillary? Iow, the Dem Party itself has already lost voters because of DLC policies. They are still left leaning, but do not view the Third Way/DLC as 'left' at all.

Poll that critical voting bloc and see what happens. And I very much doubt that Republicans are going to vote for Hillary.

Even here on DU there is little enthusiasm for her.

I know I will not be supporting her, even if she is forced on us as the nominee. I will focus on the Congressional races and local elections in an effort to give Dems in Congress more power to block Third Way policies.

She has consistently refused to say where she stands on issues important to Democrats, such as the secret Trade Agreement. Or SS being on the Deficit Table. Why can't she speak about those issues?

It is ridiculous to suggest that we have only person in the entire country to offer as a candidate to voters, and then complain when voters say 'no thanks'.

I would love to see someone like Barbara Lee run for the WH, THAT is someone people could be enthusiastic about. Hillary, no way.

[hrmjustin]

174. Is this scientific polling that Warren beats Hillary head to head? which poll is this you are citing

[sabrina 1]

175. Has there ever been a poll where Hillary isn't the only Dem candidate? Has there ever

been a poll of Independent and young voters, those are the demographics Dems are losing, causing them to lose elections.

Can you show me a poll where Hillary was up against another more Progressive candidate where the respondents are Independents?

Iow, where are you getting the idea that Hillary can win?

[hrmjustin]

176. These are the latest polls on RCP.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


Some polls use VA Democratic leaning independents because they can vote in some state primaries.


No poll has ever had any democratic candidate ahead of Hillary as far as I have seen. If you have seen z scientific poll that has shown it please share.

[sabrina 1]

177. Well, first of all I don't see any Progressive candidates who are even likely to run against her.

Cuomo is not a progressive, Webb? Most voters don't even know many of these politicians, nor have they been presented with so much intensity as we see with Hillary, as candidates at all.

Warren however is interesting. In the Quinnipac poll Warren has gained points while Clinton has lost points. Similar signs of Warren gaining, despite her clear statement that she will not run, in other polls.

There would be several reasons for this, few people even knew who she was and for those who do, she has stated she is not running. The third reason, the Party is not pushing her and spending on her at all.

Yet, considering all of that, she is gaining recognition and moving up in the polls.

But we have no polls where there are actual candidates who are as likely to run as Hillary, backed by all the money Hillary has, who has the name recognition and Party Support Hillary has, and yet, little known, on a national level, candidates, who are not even running, like Warren, are gaining points while Hillary is losing points in some of those polls.

Quinnipac is one of the more reliable polls, which is why I focused on that one.

Hillary cannot win without ALL of the base, ALL of the Dem leaning Independents and some crossover votes.

These polls show her support mostly coming from loyal party members with virtually no challengers.

While a non candidate, with little national recognition, has gained points. That is not a good sign.

[hrmjustin]

179. Well once the primary begins the numbers will change.

Once it is clear who it running and people get to know who is running it will get closer.

I still thijk Hillary is the only Democrat that can win in 2 years.

[sabrina 1]

182. How sad if what you say is true, that we have only,, very flawed candidate in our party

who is eligible.

Thankfully that is not the case at all. The truth is that the Party WANTS Hillary and have no intention of backing anyone else, no matter how qualified.

The people simply have no say, so in that sense, you are correct. As far as Wall St is conerned, they will back Hillary, no point in trying to prepare someone the people don't know already, they've placed their money and their bets on this one candidate.

And THAT is what has to change. The money, the influence of the Banks and the Money People, now even including Foreign Corps, on our elections.

Btw, I can think of a whole list of far, far better candidates, so can almost everyone I know, but Wall St would never accept them. I guess that IS what you mean when you say 'Hillary is the only one' because she sure isn't the only one in reality.

[hrmjustin]

184. I think after 2 terms of a Democratic President it will be hard to get a fifth.

At this time I think Hillary is the only one who can win.


No other candidate has proven to me they can win.

[Broward]

4. She voted for the Iraq War too.

[RiverLover]

6. & she's pro-fracking, pro-GMO, pro-offshore drilling, pro Wall Street,...

She's just another fake Dem.

[peacebird]

20. Bingo! She's a war hawk, wall street loving, fracking supporter. All that is NOT what we need.

[Legalequilibrium78]

24. Thank God for that, at least she supports

the American people having a decent real paying jobs that can support families. Which also means she is not ceding the energy market to Russia or the Saudis of the world. You have the freaking nerve to decide who and what is a "real" Democrat? Fucking hillarious!!! Support whoever you want and continue to push your pet issues but just don't go around continue this stupid garbage from your and your ilk that you guys control the lever of the Democratic Party.

Thank God for Bill Clinton winning the presidency and for his 8 yrs.tenureship of the country. His administration oversaw the "largest expansion" of job growth in the history of your country. I don't think you understand that or understood the significance of that achievement. The far left thinks they created the modern Democratic party, well you guys did not. Most of the social programs, a.k.a big government programs were inacted in the latter part of the 20th century, namely after W.W.II. and onwards.

[RiverLover]

28. And Bill's parting gift to us was repealing the Glass–Steagall Act

Thanks for 2008, Bill!

"But 10 years later, the end of Glass-Steagall has been blamed by some for many of the problems that led to last fall’s financial crisis. While the majority of problems that occurred centered mostly on the pure-play investment banks like Lehman Brothers, the huge banks born out of the revocation of Glass-Steagall, especially Citigroup, and the insurance companies that were allowed to deal in securities, like the American International Group, would not have run into trouble had the law still been in place.

“Commercial banks played a crucial role as buyers and sellers of mortgage-backed securities, credit-default swaps and other explosive financial derivatives,” Demos, a nonpartisan public policy and research organization, wrote in a report discussing the problems it said were caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

“Without the watering down and ultimate repeal of Glass-Steagall, the banks would have been barred from most of these activities,” Demos said. “The market and appetite for derivatives would then have been far smaller, and Washington might not have felt a need to rescue the institutional victims.”"
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/?_r=0

[still_one]

96. and he also gave us Justice Ginsberg. Yup, let's all have tunnel vision

[A Simple Game]

48. When you have to start a post with "at least she supports" you have already lost.

And so has she.

[still_one]

97. Here, is the link, go for it

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[A Simple Game]

111. Thanks for the link, I scrolled down and the foreign policy one was enough for me.

Cuba deserves peaceful transition to freedom & democracy. (Sep 2007)

This one sounds good, meaningless but good, until you see:

Meet with Cuban leaders only after evidence of change. (Feb 2008)

Not let's help Cuba change, not let's engage and see how we can help, but let's leave them on their own and see what happens, if nothing good, then screw them some more.

2001 speech to AIPAC pledges money for Israeli military. (Nov 2007)

I don't understand what's up with the dates, but I think anyone with a working brain knows how Israel treats the Palestinians. But what do I know, I haven't forgotten about the USS Liberty yet.

Operate from a position of strength, but not confrontation. (Dec 2007)
Commit to helping people abroad before committing troops. (Apr 2008)

Are these two to make up for her Iraqi war resolution vote? Everyone with two brain cells knew what Bush was going to do with that vote and probably still do even if he didn't get the vote in his favor.


This is too easy, find a harder one. These are just meaningless soundbites. I won't even mention that they left off the last 6 years... whoops, sorry.

[Legalequilibrium78]

108. I have not lost and neither has

Madame Hillary Clinton, your next U.S. president.

[A Simple Game]

112. And when you have to tell people you haven't lost... n/t

[Legalequilibrium78]

160. Were you not the one who declared that I lost

To begin with? Just because I don't accept your premise and opinion it does not mean I have to be goaded to go along with your asinine comment.

[TheKentuckian]

180. No she doesn't. See her support for job killing "free trade" deals and H1B visas.

What are you talking about support for a minimum wage increase? That is critical but isn't about real jobs and decent wages but rather about lifting the destitute into poverty enough to afford to be homeless alone or maybe a struggling roommate if they are lucky.

[MisterP]

133. and don't forget The Family! nt

[Sunlei]

5. why doesn't salon understand what a think tank is and 'debate' their suggestions directly?

http://www.thirdway.org/#

[reACTIONary]

159. Thanks, interesting link (nt)

[zeemike]

7. I thought we all knew the third way was real.

Don't tell me some here are trying to make it a myth.

[RiverLover]

8. On the contrary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025790059

Acc to some, ppl that talk about Third Way as real are crackpots.

[zeemike]

80. I had no idea I was a fucking crackpot.

There is something wrong with that...It seems that everything can be called a CT and dismissed.

[geek tragedy]

9. This guy doesn't like Democrats winning national elections.

His complaint is that Clinton and Obama aren't like Mondale and Dukakis.

[True Blue Door]

11. Morally unmoored Centrism is almost the least despicable thing about Hillary Clinton.

She didn't just passively go along with the Bush regime as a Senator - she toadied for it, actively curried favor with it, went around publicly rationalizing its crimes against the republic and humanity. She is Vichy, through and through.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. We HAVE to recruit Elizabeth Warren.

We HAVE to. We cannot possibly have only H. Hillary-Sachs as the only candidate. It's a guaranteed loss. Guaranteed. There is NO WAY she can win and if this last election doesn't prove that point there are truly some monumentally stupid people running and blind following that party.

[belzabubba333]

17. polls show her ahead of everyone that is predicted to run

[Le Taz Hot]

19. By "her" I'm assuming you mean Hillary?

I addressed the issue of polls this early out and their validity, or, more specifically, the lack thereof, in Post #13 above.

[belzabubba333]

36. i read your opinion in 13.

and agree that things can change in 2 years but right now she is out polling everyone else

[peacebird]

22. Yeah, polls said that before also. The inevitability meme - didn't work out so well then, did it?

[belzabubba333]

30. so we dont believe any polls now

[peacebird]

45. LOL! Nice. I don't believe any poll taken two years out can predict a presidential race.

Good try tho.

[99Forever]

26. You ride that poll...

... this DEMOCRAT will never, I repeat NEVER vote for that corporate lackey, war mongering Republican in Dem clothing.

[belzabubba333]

37. doesnt make u much of a dem if the dems put up a candidate and you hand your vote to the cons

[99Forever]

43. Doesn't make you much into REALITY if you think Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton...

... is a Democrat.

[peacebird]

46. Bingo!

[belzabubba333]

61. what i think doesnt matter

[99Forever]

69. The first correct thing you have said. n/t

[belzabubba333]

81. that is just so hillarious and clever

it doesnt matter what i think cause i dont get to decide her party affiliation and neither do you. it also a poor response to the post
doesnt make u much of a dem if the dems put up a candidate and you hand your vote to the cons

[99Forever]

84. You should have quit there. Now you are just gone. Bye bye.

[belzabubba333]

86. well if you cant handle the heat run away

[99Forever]

89. I handle heat just fine, it's stupid bullshit I don't need.

[belzabubba333]

110. then i dont understand why you would start slinging it " The first correct thing you have said. "

[madville]

38. Hillary is already lifting ideas from Warren's speeches

Didn't I just see Hillary giving a speech on income inequality last week, wonder where that idea came from? She will just start throwing keywords out to sound more to the left and more like Warren as needed.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. Yeah, and no one with two brain cells to rub together

will ever believe her. She has a LONG history of betraying the middle class and the poor. She can't run from that record.

[2banon]

79. We need someone LIKE Warren. But we need Warren in the Senate, doing exactly what she's doing.

Given that will be a very tall order, extremely unlikely, WE (the people) need to LEAD .. push for a candidate that has demonstrated actual FDR Democratic principles/policies .. not just give lip service..

At the moment I'm thinking along the lines of Bernie Sanders.. or I'd be willing to go with Howard Dean, who I think has more than EARNED respect for the office with all of his incredibld hard work and selfless dedication post 2004 "election" cycle which built the successful 2008 elections. I may not have agreed with every single policy idea, but he was no Neo Con.

It's astonishing how the party apparatchiks destroyed all of that in a very short time, and amazing that "we" let the TURD WAYS do it with impunity.

Just astonishing.

[Le Taz Hot]

82. I'm good with Bernie.

The Democrats have already lost the Senate and with the Third-Way in charge, they aren't going to get it back anytime soon. I was good with Dean in 2004, but he's been out of elective office too long. Besides, he ran a TERRIBLE campaign (thank you, Joe Trippi) in 2004. I think it got too big for them too quickly and they didn't know how to handle it. They COMPLETELY blew California by sending some 20-something who landed in Southern California and got star struck and stayed there.

California's got some good prospects coming up (Gavin Newsome and Kamala Harris) but they're a ways away from the Federal Seats quite yet. One of them will be our next governor and the other one will be our next Senator to replace Boxer.

[2banon]

88. Re: Dean's 2004 campaign vs now

I know he learned a lot from that disastrous experience, but what was even more valuable and illuminating was his work with the 50 state campaign which achieved HUGE successes, which the apparatchiks destroyed in these last two or three cycles with their turd way machinations.

I think/hope you're right about California... but the Neo-Cons in Silicon Valley are gearing up for their shills to be placed. Are you from here in the Bay Area?

[Le Taz Hot]

91. I advocate for extendig the 50-state strategy.

Not only should there be active headquarters in all 50 states and no seat should ever run unopposed, I think the candidates should vow to stay in the race until the last primary. It's bullshit that Iowa and New Hampshire and sometimes South Carolina -- none of which represent the rest of the country, should be allowed to pick our candidates for us. ALL voters from ALL states need to be able to vote on the full ticket.

To answer your question, no I'm in the Central Valley. Majority registered Democrats but all Congresscritters and almost all state legislators are Republicans. Why? Because the Democratic Party here is disgustingly weak and more worried about who is going to Head what Committee than they are about politics.

[beaglelover]

119. Yeah right. Hillary can win. No way EW can win. No way. n/t

[FrodosPet]

171. Keep in mind that Sen Warren is a Christian, for whom faith is important

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/elizabeth-warren-on-health-care-and-religion/2012/08/23/5c509058-ed6c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html

~ snip ~

Methodists believe in action. And that’s a part of goodness — a part of worship of God is to act.

I grew up in a Methodist church and I was a Sunday school teacher when we lived back in Texas. When I was making the decision whether to get into this Senate race, one of the important touch points for me was to read my bible. And it’s Matthew 25:40, you know the passage? For me, that passage is the heart of what I believe. Because what it says is “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these the least of these my bretheren. ...” (I still use the King James version, it’s beautiful).

It says three things: it says there is God in...the hungry, the poor, the stranger, there is God in each of us. Because. Remember, it says “you did it unto me.” And that’s saying God was in, God is in, the poor, the thirsty, the stranger.

But then part two is he never asks the question of going to heaven and hell, what your intent was, the question was: Did you act? And those who gave meat to the hungry, those who gave water to the thirsty, those who welcomed the stranger in, were the ones that God welcomed to heaven. ... It stresses the importance of community, because it says, in fact, it’s about action and it’s about action together.

And that’s how I read Matthew 25:40. And it’s why I’m in this race.

~ snip ~

So that will throw her under the bus for some anti-religionists.

As well, she supported Israel in the most recent war. And she supported the bombing ISIS. So many anti-war activists will not be able to support her.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140821/NEWS/408210325/-1/news11

~ snip ~

"I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," she said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world."

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel "indiscriminately," but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have "not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for." When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel's attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the "last thing Israel wants."

"But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself," Warren said, drawing applause.

~ snip ~

I support the Senator, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that she will have unconditional support from progressives.

[TheKentuckian]

181. This is politics not rearing your child, there should never be any unconditional support.

Support had best have conditions.

[whereisjustice]

15. +1, no more neo-con/neo-lib bullshit for the Democratic Party

[Enthusiast]

21. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Stink bomb. Vote for Hillary if you want your medicare slashed.

[raindaddy]

63. Not Surprising!

The Clinton's turned the Democratic party from a populist party that once told the Wall Street banksters, "we welcome their hatred to the party that helped pave the way for the biggest Wall Street rip off of the American people in history.
So we're about to reward them by making Hillary President? Not this Democrat!!!

[hatrack]

75. But you get a free Grand Bargain!

And a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax!!

[Oilwellian]

170. That is such an astonishing little clip

Who says the two parties can't work together??? It just has to be done in whispers because when the Third Way and Republicans put their heads together, it's not for the benefit of the people. What a perfectly grand example of that fact. Thank you for posting and reminding us what we're really dealing with when it comes to all things Clinton.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. And yet as an alternative, many offer a candidate who was part of the Republican Party for 20-25

years, tightly involved with big business and Wall St, voting for Ronald Reagan over and over again, voting for George Bush after that. She made millions and millions in service to Corporate bad guys, observed her Party laugh about dying AIDS patients then refuse to take any action on that public health crisis for years and years and then she voted to let even more die so she could make even more Trickle Down Bucks.
And it is a problem. If the objection to Hillary is that she is too much like a Republican, the solution offered can not be an actual lifelong anti gay Republican Reaganomics ardent. Because that makes the critique of Hillary hypocritical, shallow and selective.
Many here will call Hillary 'Goldwater Girl' and then promote Warren, who voted for Republicans until the mid 90s, voted against Bill Clinton and for George Bush. See the problem with that? 'Candidate A is very bad because she once snorted a line of coke, Candidate B is very great because she once shot up a ounce of coke while snorting smack!!!!!!
People who use various standards to judge various people are using the very selective ethics of the self serving Republicans. I don't care for it.

[RiverLover]

56. She's truly Progressive now & we NEED that, now. In her words~

Elizabeth Warren: "Before we sink more money in gas infrastructure, we have an obligation wherever possible to focus our investments on the clean technologies of the future -- not the dirty fuels of the past -- and to minimize the environmental impact of all our energy infrastructure projects. We can do better -- and we should." (Aug 2014)
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/columnists/ci_26322123/sen-elizabeth-warren-we-can-do-better-than

Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over” (Oct 2014)
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exclusive_elizabeth_warren_on_barack_obama_they_protected_wall_street_not_families_who_were_losing_their_homes_not_people_who_lost_their_jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/


Blog
The tax code is rigged
August 1, 2014 | By Elizabeth Warren

"Huge corporations hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to create, expand, and protect every last corporate loophole.

That's how we end up with a tax code that makes teachers and bus drivers and small business owners pay, but that allows some huge American corporations to make billions of dollars and not pay a single dime in taxes.

Simply put, the tax code is rigged."
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/corporateinversions

[NaturalHigh]

50. I seem to remember after the 2008 primaries...

everyone telling Clinton voters that they needed to fall in line and support Barack Obama for president since he was the party's nominee. Now I see a lot of people saying that if she's the nominee, they won't support her.

Nothing like a little consistency.

[RiverLover]

59. The media telling us she is our nominee doesn't make her the nominee

You see the distinction? It isn't quite official yet.

[NaturalHigh]

64. Absolutely...

but I do see people saying that if she is the nominee, they won't vote for her. Back in 2008 it was a tombstone offense here for a poster to say that he or she would not vote for the nominee. Skinner himself told everyone to fall in line and get behind then-Senator Obama once he was the nominee. I personally thought that was arrogant and offensive, but that was the rule here.

Will the same edict be issued if Secretary Clinton wins the primary, or is she too "third way" to get the support that was mandated for Barack Obama?

[RiverLover]

85. Ah. Thx for clarifying....I'll be in trouble if she's on the ticket

Because I couldn't ever vote for her. It'd be a toss up btn a rethug in disguise, or a rethug. There'd be no point at all.

[Scuba]

54. K&R

[LiberalArkie]

55. Yep, as an Arkansan, her and Bill were just high priced corporate attorneys.

nothing more and nothing less until some of their clients talked Bill into running for Attorney General of Arkansas. (Their clients needed some help with the laws. Just small clients like JB. Hunt, Tyson Foods and Sam Walton). Nothing has changed.

I always voted for them (they ran on the Democratic ticket). I hoped they would help people, but nope, just their clients.

[LawDeeDah]

60. '''I think her concerns about women and children now extends mostly to photo ops.'''BOOM

Back to Hillary: After spending so much time researching her career and views, is there any one thing you think that she really believes in and will make sacrifices for — beyond personal advancement, I mean? Politicians often pick an issue or two about which they really care and will fight for. What’s hers?

She would say women and children’s issues. And the fact that she endorsed the repeal of welfare in ’96 …

Yeah, that’s a bit problematic …

[Laughs] Yes, it’s very seriously problematic. That move put millions of women and children in poverty.

I think her concerns about women and children now extends mostly to photo ops. When she was secretary of state, she traveled … close to a million miles, they say. Always getting groups of women together. I guess her mere presence was supposed to empower them somehow …

The actual policies that she advocates are not going to change the material or social well-being of women or children in any significant way.

[blackspade]

66. The DLC and its subsequent incarnations...

Are just corporation's way of turning the party into a pliable center right Republican Party.
Triangulation and other political theories are garbage.

[treestar]

71. What does that sentence about the stink bomb mean?

What is the certainty of liberals? How do you put a stink bomb "into" it?

[peacebird]

77. That she is an anathema to many liberals, so they will not support her.

[stevenleser]

124. The polls completely discredit that and by a huge margin. It's not even close. nt

[SHRED]

76. We will get whomever the...

... Citizens United controlled media ordains.

[hrmjustin]

83. What do you think of those of us here and Democrats that support Hillary?

Are we all third way people?

[2banon]

90. Third Way = Neo-Conservative ideas/policies. period.

If that's the political philosophy you support, that's your business but at least be honest with yourself about it.

[hrmjustin]

93. I do not support that philosophy.

I don't agree with Hillary on everything. I think you make presumptions that you should not.

[Kermitt Gribble]

131. If you don't support that philosophy,

and Hillary does support that philosophy, then why do you support Hillary?

[hrmjustin]

132. I support her because she will win.

I support Hillary because I ghink she is ready to be president.

[Kermitt Gribble]

134. So it doesn't matter where she stands on the issues, only that she can win.

Got it.

[hrmjustin]

137. Did I say that? where did I say that.

Of course I care about issues.

[PassingFair]

151. She didn't win in the last presidential election.

She would have lost to Edwards if he hadn't flamed out.
And she DID lose to Obama.

She will lose to ANY credible candidate.

Because she is divisive within our OWN party, and
because if she manages to manipulate her way into
being our candidate, she will bring out the republicans in
DROVES to vote against her.

Worst. Candidate. Choice. Ever.

[antigop]

87. "The actual policies that she advocates are not going to change the material or social well-being of

women or children in any significant way."


Spot on.

[L0oniX]

92. Rep owned congress and senate was planned so that we will gladly vote for any Dem for the POTUS.

Ya think?

[DCBob]

94. Hillary would not be my first choice but I do think she is our best bet to retain the WH..

and we absolutely need to retain the WH or all hell will break loose with RW crazies running the show.

[still_one]

99. wow, a pragmatic person

[2015already]

103. Speaking in terms of third Way

Anyone who thinks Hillary isn't a viable source for President hasn't looked at the candidate in a political format at her track record.

Hillary snatched a US Senate seat from not just one seasoned Republican in NY, but two. And she did it in an old station wagon talking to the people as a first time Senate candidate. She did it as a Carpet Bagger new to the state. She did it against the negative back drop of an Impeached President-husband, Bill Clinton. Even hero Reagan couldn't have made that climb, but Hillary did.

And Hillary would have taken the primary from Obama, had not the republicans voted for Obama to prevent a Hillary win. And they did it because Hillary frightens the hell out of them. And it has cost them dearly financially, because the third way would have been bringing the only guy to balance the budget in years back into the White House. They shot themselves in the foot. And that is what these beltway bullchitters continue to overlook. You get Hill & you get Bill, the Clinton team. The right has had to run a constant negative campaign to keep Hillary out of the White House, and in 2016 they will have failed. Their latest attempt was to tarnish and smear her record over Benghazi, countless committees & investigations, and they failed.

For sure, go see Hillary's track record over at wiki in the biography. She has been politics all he life & has remained unsmeared by the rights attempts to demonize her. I admire that she takes responsibility and will stand by her decisions. No right candidate will do that.

Any Left candidate hated and feared that much by the right must be one hot President. Remember the Clinton Team in 2016!! You want out of this economic hole, you best bring Bill back into the White House.

[marble falls]

115. Different economy, much different Clinton. The problem this time isn't lack of wealth and debt...

its upward movement of wealth and we've gotten back to a more balanced budget, and Hillary is not Bill.

I wish Bill could run again, I'd like to have seen him with a good economy AND a Congress for eight years. And I'll only vote for Hilliary if she's the Democratic candidate, I don't think the GOP/Teapublicans have anybody who deserves to be more than a one term Congressman.

[uppityperson]

120. Welcome to DU but " had not the republicans voted for Obama to prevent a Hillary win"?

The republicans voted for Obama vs Clinton?

[AtomicKitten]

150. Rush Limbaugh solicited Republicans to vote in

the Democratic primary for Hillary. It was called Operation Chaos. You have that fact backwards. The Republicans sought to prolong the Dem primary so Hillary could bloody up the Democratic nominee for them which, of course, she was pleased to oblige them. Rush said the Republicans would not get away with the race-baiting ugliness toward Obama like the Clintons were dishing up. In fact, Rush broadcast an interview Bill Clinton gave his show playing it the day of the Texas primary. These are historical facts. It was Obama they feared and for good reason.

[LiberalElite]

123. K&R +1,000 nt

[merrily]

127. Liberals nothing. IMO, she's not a stink bomb only into liberals.

On the bullshit about the Third Way being created by DUers:

Origins

The term "Third Way" has been used to explain a variety of political courses and ideologies in the last few centuries. These ideas were implemented by progressives in the early 20th century. The term "Third Way" was picked up again in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy. Later Röpke distanced himself from the term and located the social market economy as "first way" in the sense of an advancement of the free market economy.[15] Most significantly, Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, based his philosophy of government on what he entitled in a book, The Middle Way (1938).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

Hillary's disastrous, cataclysmic stink bomb. (I guess this is her idea of being ready for the 3 am phone call.)

[grahamhgreen]

138. "Third way" goes back to

"The Quiet American" - To stem the Communist tide threatening to inundate Southeast Asia, the agency wants to conjure up an indigenous democratic alternative to French colonialism. Pyle’s job is to devise this Third Way.

[Rex]

139. You have to understand, there is and agenda here to minimize any talk of the Third Way.

First they pretended it didn't exist, then when shown it did they pretended it was nothing important. SOP for some.

[blkmusclmachine]

140. The Clintons never met a Republican they wouldn't "compromise" with.

The compromisers, are compromised.

[JEB]

141. If the Pukes are going to lose, they want to lose to Hillary.

[Rex]

143. True, it would be disastrous for them if someone like Warren or Sanders won.

[relayerbob]

149. HRC cannot and will not win the Presidency

Mark my words.

Best find a gutsy, populist candidate who can inspire the people and not get torn to shreds. Good luck. For 40 years, I've been supporting the party and for 40 years, Dems have been their own worst enemy - from destroying Carter and Gore to this years debacle in what should have been a relatively easy win given the GOP disarray and splits. But nooooo. The candidates were cowards and even Clinton and Warren shit on Obama in the final weeks of the campaign. If one thing the GOP knows how to do, it's stand back to back, even if they hate one another, to win an election. Stay on message, no matter how awful and do not attack one another until the day after the election.

[Odin2005]

153. THIRD-WAY FUCKERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO FAIL.

[Veilex]

156. +1

[daredtowork]

157. This. nt

[cantbeserious]

165. K&R - No To HRC - No To DLC - No To Third Way

eom

[DeSwiss]

168. K&R

- I think she'd make a wonderful queen though. She's so Imperial!

[Beacool]

183. Yawn, another liberal bashing Hillary.

Same litany, different day.