2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton EVOLVED Today, Yesterday, Last Week, In June And In April UPDATED With May!
Hillary has pulled an incredible feat of evolving into an almost totally unrecognizable candidate at a pace that would put lesser souls stumbling around for Dramamine to stop the spinning.
Just today, after consulting with over 200 policy experts, and with the prospect of alienating some of her Wall St. donors, Hillary decided that appeasing the left was more important at this time. So she came out with a plan to 'update' Glass Steagall. Not to reinstate it, mind you, just to tinker with it.
Yesterday, after years of supporting the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and calling it the 'gold standard' of trade; and after pushing it over 45 times! Hillary has decided that she is actually against it.
Last week, and after the Clinton State Department had corrupted the initial studies into the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary has made a complete turnaround and is now saying that she opposes the pipeline due to it's possible environmental impacts.
In June, after many years of opposing same sex marriage, Hillary evolved into a 21st century candidate by saying she now supports complete gay rights.
In April, Hillary decided that she wasn't going to get caught like she was in 2008 when Obama stood for issuing Drivers Licenses to the undocumented and she was opposed, so she updated her stance to be in approval of Drivers Licenses for the undocumented.
Hmmm, what do you suppose is causing this frenzy of rapid evolution and did I miss anything?
UPDATED:Oops! forgot her evolution in May. Who could forget her change of stance on Iraq? In May she said voting for Iraq invasion was a mistake!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/08/1429557/-Hillary-Clinton-evolved-today-yesterday-last-week-in-June-and-in-April
Faux pas
(14,582 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That's how it usually works in a representative democracy, after all. Power ultimately all comes from the people, even if big-times manipulations pre-1930s and post-1970s detour it through other hands.
When we shifted left early last century, our politicians did too. When we shifted right in the late 1970s, our politicians did too. When Big Money bought our representatives for themselves (WITH OUR HELP) our representatives shifted to representing them.
Well, we're shifting left again! Right now. And with it we are ENABLING liberal politicians to once again embrace pre-1970s ideals.
We are seeing that happen now in the positions being taken by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton, in order of strong to moderate liberals.
Please note, THIS is why most people never heard of Sanders before he stepped up to take the torch Elizabeth Warren took.
BTW, speaking of flipping, did you know Warren was a lifelong Republican, including all through the transfer of national power to Big Money and dismantling of every type of regulation during the Reagan Era? Until 1995.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)All the flips, flops, mealy mouths, dodges and lies are a result of her want to attain power.
Segami
(14,923 posts)has flipped on his policies just in time to accommodate her Democratic nomination campaign. They prepare the theater of illusions and expect us to just sit down and enjoy their act.
"They prepare the theater of illusions and expect us to just sit down and enjoy their act."
Very nicely worded Segami!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Their whole campaign depends on uninformed voters and the corporate media does their best to deliver..Hopefully more and more people will begin to see through their "theater of illusions"..
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Winning and power.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)No idea what she wants to actually DO with the presidency, she just wants the power and to go down in history as the first woman president.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I feel sorry for you. I admit she is a political being, for sure. But doesn't have any reasons for wanting to be the President? Doubt that.
Take a step back and imagine another Republican as President as opposed to Hillary, just for giggles.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I'll clarify and say that she doesn't have any set policy agenda, besides greasing the wheels for the corporate interests that aim to put her on top. There is no case for a Hillary presidency otherwise, except the "she's better than a republican" rationale that you're advancing. To that, I say "not by much." It's just a matter of whether or not you prefer your pro-corporate warhawkery with a side of religious derp or not.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Bernie is a far better candidate in every respect and will thoroughly trounce whatever DOA candidate falls out of the Clown car next year.
Primaries are for putting our best foot forward, now Wallstreet's choice, but the choice of the people.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)someone who seeks power to this maniacal extent certainky has an idea of what she wants to get done....and NONE OF IT is good.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Voted for the Iraq war. voted against the Levin amendment. Voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Voted for the Patriot Act. Voted against an amendment barring use of cluster munitions in civilian areas.
Paka
(2,760 posts)the spin makes me dissy.
I don't like being dissy. I prefer a solid steady hand at the helm.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...then come forward with language that sounds like she supports it but gives her an out.
crystal dawn
(85 posts)damned if you do, damned if you don't.
seems to apply even when she agrees to agree with what you agree with
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)When she was a candidate in 2008, she started voicing misgivings about NAFTA, which she had championed as First Lady. Once in Obama's administration, she was suddenly fine with it. Ergo, it's not just a matter of her changing her mind to a better position. It's a matter of her temporarily voicing liberal positions to get votes, then taking a corporatist lean to the right once in office.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)that we should judge these politicians by what they DO instead of what they SAY.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Do you trust her not to "evolve" again. It's tough to tell if a candidate has actually had a fundamental change of heart on an issue, or if they're just trying to pull a bait and switch. I'd be interested to know what information changed her mind.
I want to elect a leader for president. That is someone who is consistent in their positions from the get go. They speak out on unpopular issues even if it might cost them votes.
I don't want someone who says what I want to hear only when an election is imminent. That is not leadership. That is pandering for the promotion of a political agenda. In Hillary Clinton's case that is getting elected president no matter what.
No thanks!
Javaman
(62,439 posts)she's become "quite the leftie liberal" after Bernies numbers started threatening her.
My vote doesn't matter here in Texas. the repuke mouthbreather candidate will get all the electoral votes.
I'm voting for Bernie even if he doesn't get the nomination.
I can't stand Hillary.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Great cartoon too!
Man Oh man...her evolution is going to cost her Big Time. I wonder what brainiac decided she should evolve out of control?
Whew. This is baaaaad.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I'm not quite so confident because the average voter out there pays about 10% as much attention to this stuff as we do. Most Americans can't find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. Expecting them to know not only what the candidates' positions are, but also the history of their positions, is asking a lot.
That said, one thing the general public does get is an overall sense of a candidate. And manuevers like this are a lot of the reason people say they just don't trust Hillary Clinton.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Smartphones, iPads, tablets, laptops and desktops are the norm now. Most computer home pages give an overview of the days news. Hillary's speedy evolution to the Left won't go unnoticed by most people. It's EVERYWHERE online...everywhere. This isn't going to help her.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)As a Hillary Supporter, I think her "Evolving" has been in large part due to Bernie in the race. Definitely like her ticking to the left!!
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)We've seen this dog and pony show before.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)'tis great!
Darb
(2,807 posts)I was worried we might not meet our quota.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)almost unnoticed.....the enemy camp is the camp within and no one is going to change their minds about that.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And has everyone in the extreme Left thrown away their election calendar schedules??
Is Clinton not to be "trusted"? Is that what it boils down to? So stop with the policy attacks and just say that!
Obviously "no trust" has to be the ultimate defence in order to attack Clinton policy moving to the left....policies, or lack of stated positions, that where attacked when the policy was not moving as desired also....I get it, it is the logical thing to do to then cry "no trust"!
What does she have to do, make a pinky swear with everyone and take her shoes off so as to reveal the crossing of toes?
The linked OP kind of lays bare how it was never about policy positions on Clinton for the extreme Left, it was just about some unresolved general hostility towards her and her twice elected President husband.
Moving left, demanding she be more leftist and when she does....being even more outraged?! That makes no sense, but it is revealing of inner motive, so.....All righty, then!
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)The people in this thread haven't been "demanding that she be more leftist."
Rather, they've been supporting a candidate who is now, and who has been, a real progressive. Their complaint with Clinton is the sheer transparency of it all: Ten days before a debate, she's dressing herself up in new progressive garb, and trying to pretend she's something that she's not.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Anything else I can help you with?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)It is if you say so.
Regarding gun control: Yeah, I can trust him. I'm pretty sure where he stands. Personally, I'd like to see the U.S. adopt gun control regulations similar to those enacted in Australia in 1996. But that's a tall order, and I'll take moderate reforms over nothing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)After Sandy Hook.
I bet you didn't even know this, did you?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Yep. Your work is done here. Pick up a pair of these on your way out:
?color=Black&height=460&width=460&qv=90
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Calculated and fake then. Even more calculated and fake now.
It's always been about policy positions. She changes costumes so much, nobody can believe anything she says. She has a long history. We all know it. We ain't buyin' it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"Is Clinton not to be "trusted"? Is that what it boils down to? So stop with the policy attacks and just say that!"
The "policy attacks" are simply pointing out one set of reasons why she is not trustworthy.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I guess her new policy positions make her part of the "extreme left." Maybe tomorrow or next week, we'll hear about universal health insurance or something like that.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)by default qualifies her as a Democratic Socialist.......she's NOT moderate anymore.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Is she going to apologize for pretending to appear a democratic socialist? I can't keep up with her daily flip flops.
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)down, then the new positions really aren't hers after all, are they? They are merely an expedient designed to get the votes of the Democratic base back from Bernie.
Unfortunately for Clinton, Bernie has a consistent 40 year track record of promoting the same positions he is promoting now.
That's the difference here, and it is a huge one.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The "ultimate defense" will be the fact that Bernie was decades ahead of his time and doesn't have large donors that he has to answer to.
I don't know how I can be convinced that someone will cash the checks of the banks, Wallstreet, and drug companies on Tuesday and then effectively regulate them on Thursday.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Now you support 'far left' extremist positions, cuz you know, Hillary!?!
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)It softens the minds of the followers until they support anything the suit does.
The argument that supporting a proxy who represents nothing more than prevailing wind is better than supporting one's values candidate in the face of an opposing but equally substantive set of counter values, is a specious one. In the laboratory of democracy we can hold those values up, and even if one loses to to the other, eventually good values will out. When your system becomes almost completely relativisitic you have no gauge of what has been learned...indeed, the point is that nothing is supposed to be learned. You've lost the crucible in which democracy is formed. And more pernicious, you have allowed the one true value behind this model to hide behind an ever-shifting curtain of distraction. When the proxy is motivated solely by what will put them in power, power is revealed as the only value left on the stage. And I do not care how beneficient the actor presently on stage may be, the understudy waits in the wings, and the backers of the play are counting money in the dark.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He has been running back and forth for years.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... I actually tried, in good faith, to find evidence of Sanders flip-flopping "back and forth" on gun control. I couldn't. What I found is that he's been quite consistent, and for decades has been protecting gun rights of rural hunters but opposing military-style weapons.
If you have any informaton on "back and forth" policy changes, I'd be interested in a link. I'm trying to educate myself on the topic, so the request is sans snark, as it were.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)They like to spew their lies with nothing to back them up. Your take on Bernie's gun control policy is spot on. He has said the same thing for years. The NRA doesn't like his stances on guns and has consistently given him D- or F ratings.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... the Brady Bill and what not
WillyT
(72,631 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...."evolved", and was no longer the document that she worked on as Secretary of State.
One should watch the video or read her statement objectively.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)statement....as you can see neither either is likely, and the election calendar is still lost at sea.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)A former Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), who was involved with working on the TPP while Hillary was SoS and calling it a "gold standard", said that it was crap even then. Too many giveaways to corporations, few if any benefits to the average citizen. And the debates in the Japanese Parliament at the time also made it clear that TPP was supported by "free-traders", but had opposition from both sides of the aisle.
Here's what some Japanese politicians had to say about it a few months after Hillary left State:
TPPが自由貿易というのは真っ赤なウソ。TPPはアメリカの、アメリカによる、アメリカのための利益追求システム」――。
"Saying TPP is free trade is a big, fat Lie. TPP is a system of, by and for America to pursue profits"
The former MAFF minister (Masahiko Yamada) had this to say about USTR Michael Froman,
私に言わせれば、アメリカの多国籍企業の投資家の代理人みたいな人」
"If you ask me, he (Froman) looks like a representative of investors of American multinational corporations".
And as early as November 2011, Yamada had founded the "TPP wo Shinchou ni Kangaeru Kai" ("The Society for Seriously Considering the TPP" along with 100+ other Japanese politicians to examine the many unfavorable issues with the TPP, including "abolition of tariffs, residual farm chemicals, chemical food additives, changing GMO regulations, reducing the basic amounts of government procurements, changing the national health care system, the introduction of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, environmental problems, changes in the intellectual property rights system, and adverse impacts on public companies", among other things.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPPを慎重に考える会
TPP was bad then, it is bad now.
Lunabell
(5,919 posts)He former positions were for political expedience. I don't trust a word out of HRC's mouth, but she is better than any damned rethuglican out there and will hold my nose and vote for her if she wins the nomination.
Lunabell
(5,919 posts)[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://postimage.org/]adult image host[/url]
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)make out of it. John Kerry will look like he was a rock by comparison. She is done. Sorry, but it's time to start looking at Bernie or O'Malley. Or, against my better judgement, Biden.
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)is alarmed. No one in that establishment wants Bernie because he's telling the truth about things they don't want us to think about.
He's rocking the old boat.
Upsetting the apple cart.
I'm thinking that during the month after the debate, Joe Biden will suddenly announce his candidacy and Clinton's donor base will start drying up. The corporate super PACS will switch allegiance and it will be Bernie against Joe instead of Bernie against Hillary. I like Joe a bit better than Hillary, true - he's not quite so much of a poll-driven wind sock - but am in 99% agreement with Bernie on issues.
I'm sticking with Bernie, but Biden would be OK. I mean, I wouldn't have to hold my nose as much voting for him as for Clinton.
But I still want Bernie.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)questionseverything
(9,631 posts)we had a family gathering last night,the talk turned to the primaries, from the 11 year old to the 70 year olds, everyone supports bernie
we are all basically dems but some have libertarian leanings as in they still believe in the Constitution,some are fiscally conservative (do not want there money wasted on wars), some are very socialist,believe healthcare is a right...but every single one wants bernie to become president
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)a moderate candidate, until just this week when she became the "real, true progressive."
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)If her polling numbers continue to drop, she'll be declaring she's a socialist.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I'm putting it in my calendar. She's about to be hit by an October surprise. Right before the debate.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)they discover every time a critique is posted?
Maybe she can dishonestly dodge her the concerns her critics might have with the dizziness and subsequent/consequent judgement questions that arise from spinning so feverishly in an effort to find a political safe harbor from her past positions and the ones she needs now...
As we can see, her supporters try and fail miserably everytime she's put on the hot seat around here.
They "debate" like their rightwing cousins -- never seen a logical fallacy or subject change they didn't like if it provides some respite from the brutal realities their poor damsel is confronted with, and especially those of her own undeniable making, like the case at bar here...
jalan48
(13,797 posts)I see a big opportunity to make money in the "Hillary Clinton" line of pants suits.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)Not like she really opposes it.
That could weaken her Wall Street cash spigot.
She just wants to fool progressives who worry about things like labor, and the environment.
BAIT AND SWITCH
Don't be fooled.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)No one.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Awaking at 8 A.M., Sanders, who had planned to run to the left of Clinton in 2016, discovered that, while he was sleeping, she had already begun running slightly to the left of him.
In an online video posted Thursday morning, Clinton welcomed Sanders to the race, adding, To those who agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues, let me say this: I am Bernie Sanders.
Sanders, who had scheduled a speech in Vermont for 11 A.M. on Thursday, cancelled it abruptly, saying, Hillary already said everything I was going to say an hour ago.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/hillary-expected-to-adopt-all-of-sanderss-positions-by-noon
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... and... and!?
sigh, none of these candidates can throw stones
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lol you guys are still pushing that made up nonsense?
Hillary effortlessly switches positions based on which way the political winds are blowing on any given day. Evolution you can count on!
Cuz, you know, Hillary!!!
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... dismiss it outright with no facts hunh?
ok...
They've all evolved during this year,... and that's a good thing... none of them are throwing stones in that category
NOT
ONE
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Can't wait til the first debate. Will be fun to see Hillary attemption to defend Bernies, er I mean her new positions.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)that she can't run on the ideas she believes in - third-way politics and neo-liberal economics. It's going to be the death of the Democratic party if their candidates continue to run as pretend progressives and then govern as third-way neo-liberals. The voters are catching on and that was a big reason voter turnout was only 37% in 2014. If she can't run on her own ideas and beliefs she should get out the race.
jfern
(5,204 posts)sometime between getting the nomination and becoming President. It's a fact. She thinks primary voters are morons.