2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat progressive progress has Hillary Clinton ever made?
I think we can include cheer leading for, and working behind the scenes for the advancement of, the CHIP* (children's health insurance program) as one.
*By the way, CHIP is basically an expansion of eligibility of medicaid for kids, which happens to be form of socialized medicine. I am a firm supporter of the CHIP program and the expansion of medicaid. It's a good thing and something Clinton should be proud of being a part of advocating for and helping get passed.
But other than that, I can't recall one thing Hillary Clinton has made me aware of that is a.) progressive b.) something she deserves the spearhead of credit in terms of making progress on.
I feel like the "a progressive is someone who makes progress" is a slogan more than an embodiment of her record of getting a lot done.
This thread is a call to Hillary Clinton supporters to educate me and the rest of us on how much progress Clinton has made.
To start, I found this: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/
But on that list, other than CHIP program, I am not finding anything that convinces me she is a progressive who makes progress except maybe on the fringe edges. Yes, there are some good things, but nothing so impressive that would substantiate the notion that "she gets things done" while implying "Bernie does not".
I think since Hillary Clinton is now using the "progressive who make progress" a cornerstone of her political frame, then we need to take her to task on exactly what she has done.
Examples in a bullet list would be great.
Thanks.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you disagree, take it up with your candidate.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)My Endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251662117
Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)He didn't even support Clinton in 2008. Wrote tons of articles about why he didn't like Clinton.
Typical flip-flopper and not even worth the read these days. He has the Fox News infection (Google his username, and you'll see him)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernie also guest appears on Fox. I congratulate you on a completely ad-hominem post with no redeeming value whatsoever.
Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)You are a "contributor" to Faux News.
Bernie isn't.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You really ought to make sure you know what you are talking about before you make assertions. Otherwise you really look silly, like you do now.
You just attacked your own candidate for President. Well done!!!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You personally are a newsworthy elected official whose opinions are a matter of general public interest?
I frankly don't care where you appear, but this is a broken comparison.
A US Senator appearing on a television show for an interview and discussion of his positions, is not at all comparable to a guest commentator. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction between those two things.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as an elected official. So no, it's not a broken comparison.
The broken comparison is to say Bernie has some better reason to be on than I do. Assuming its this hated entity.
I consider RT a hated entity and I don't go on there anymore as a result. If Bernie thinks the same about any other media source, he shouldn't go on. It's that simple.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)This is the problem with news culture today. Big money and corporate interest drown out a lot of voices, he (Ed) said, noting that RT completes the picture of the events in the US and around the globe, giving viewers access to a range of stories, voices and opinions, and a real opportunity to speak their minds. https://www.rt.com/usa/328933-ed-schultz-news-show/
If I had to choose between Shultz and someone that flip flops on a politician like Hillary, I'm going with Shultz
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Someone who does, that's your business.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)My original post is a question, not an argument. I even give credit for CHIP and provide an example.
This is an opportunity for you to expand on that.
Additionally, because I know you are just trying to "change the frame" this isn't about the label of "progressive" but rather this is about the self-described label of "a progressive who makes progress" that Clinton has now adopted and fervently promotes. Thus, if you want to be a productive part of the conversation here, you need to answer the original question. You are not as clever as you think you are, Steven Leser. Your tricks are not lost upon many of us.
Also, I would like to remind you that you said in the past Clinton was to morally impaired to be President or too stupid to be President. I think you said she was a liar, please correct me if I am wrong. Thus, I think you have a very burden upon you at DU to speak truthfully as your past performance is not exemplary in your relationship with Clinton. This means you have a lot to make up for.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)This is how he operates. I ceased taking anything that Faux News wannabe says seriously years ago.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)for the most important elected office we have.
Once you reconcile that, you can argue the point with Hillary supporters.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Hunh.
cali
(114,904 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Ha - they got nuthin'
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)...taught Obama how not to do it. So maybe that counts for something.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)maybe in a kind of round-a-bout way?
kath
(10,565 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Childrens Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/speeches/association_for_better_ny.shtm" target="_blank">instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clintons successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249895" target="_blank">instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
Stuff: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)but what else should I have expected? The first ladies library? REally?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)because the puff pieces didn't convince anybody.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... cause reality chafes your butt.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Pretty much a summary of GD-P.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)For starters, they have their own dictionary where 'fact' is defined as 'truthiness.'