HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rogue donors (wealthy Dem...

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:34 AM

Rogue donors (wealthy Democratic progressives) NOT ready for Hillary.

This is a lengthy, fact-filled article quoting many wealthy progressive Dems who would prefer Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Why? Because HRC is too hawkish, too close to Wall Street and insufficiently aggressive on fighting climate change, income inequality and the role of money in politics. I chose excerpts re support for Warren, but there's discussion of support for the others as well.
An interesting comment on this article:

"Then what, pray tell, does Hillary have to offer the country?
Sorry, she's got NOTHING! Never has expressed an original thought or idea. Can't even say if she's running.
Somebody with a great plan for America would not be toying with the decision to run. She/he would be out there rallying America to embrace her/his ideas.
With Hillary, it's not about America, it's only about Hillary.
Go ahead - vote for her, if you think it's her "turn" & turns matter.
The rest of us have a higher standard for the high office of the presidency. "



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622.html#ixzz3FMoDVVZr

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622_Page2.html

By far the candidate who most worries Clintonites — and most excites the anybody-but-Hillary donors — is Warren, whose tough posture toward Wall Street and on reducing income inequality thrill liberal activists and donors. They’re hoping that she can be persuaded to make the race if they can demonstrate enough support for her.

“I think the wiggle room is that she doesn’t have to make the decision now,” said Deborah Sagner, a New Jersey real estate executive and philanthropist. She sided with Obama early in his 2008 Democratic primary against Clinton, later raising more than $500,000 for his reelection, and now is raising money for the Warren super PAC, Ready for Warren Presidential Draft Campaign.

“I was never really been inspired by the Clintons, either of them,” said Sagner, who wrote among the first checks — $20,000 — to the Warren super PAC, the very name of which has been interpreted as a swipe at Ready for Hillary. Sagner said she’s been “delightedly surprised” by how many donors have offered to contribute. “Obviously, I’m not necessarily saying to this to people who I know from ’07 have been for Hillary. I’ve mostly been talking to people who in ’07 were looking for an alternative to Hillary.” Among them, she said, there is the sense “that a rigorous primary in the Democratic presidential primary is very healthy for the party.”

Sagner is a former board member of the influential Democracy Alliance club of wealthy liberals. Its membership — which skews anti-war, anti-money in politics and economically populist — largely turned away from Clinton and toward Obama in 2008. Sources say the club’s current donor pool again includes an ardent anybody-but-Hillary wing. This time around, its underdog rival of choice is Warren, who demurred when she was urged to run after speaking to the club’s annual winter meeting late last year.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622_Page2.html#ixzz3FMnBFGEY

74 replies, 3750 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rogue donors (wealthy Democratic progressives) NOT ready for Hillary. (Original post)
Divernan Oct 2014 OP
Scuba Oct 2014 #1
Enthusiast Oct 2014 #5
daleanime Oct 2014 #7
Shadowflash Oct 2014 #19
MissDeeds Oct 2014 #24
RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #26
SammyWinstonJack Oct 2014 #55
roguevalley Oct 2014 #65
KoKo Oct 2014 #2
dembotoz Oct 2014 #3
LongTomH Oct 2014 #74
Dustlawyer Oct 2014 #4
Divernan Oct 2014 #18
Dustlawyer Oct 2014 #48
Android3.14 Oct 2014 #6
Divernan Oct 2014 #14
Historic NY Oct 2014 #8
sabrina 1 Oct 2014 #73
RedCappedBandit Oct 2014 #9
peace13 Oct 2014 #12
rock Oct 2014 #10
EileenFB Oct 2014 #15
mopinko Oct 2014 #31
calimary Oct 2014 #53
EileenFB Oct 2014 #71
rhett o rick Oct 2014 #61
rock Oct 2014 #66
rhett o rick Oct 2014 #69
rock Oct 2014 #70
rhett o rick Oct 2014 #72
hootinholler Oct 2014 #11
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #36
rhett o rick Oct 2014 #62
marble falls Oct 2014 #13
Proud Public Servant Oct 2014 #16
mopinko Oct 2014 #32
YoungDemCA Oct 2014 #37
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #38
Chathamization Oct 2014 #45
Barack_America Oct 2014 #50
TBF Oct 2014 #17
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #39
KamaAina Oct 2014 #57
whereisjustice Oct 2014 #20
Divernan Oct 2014 #22
whereisjustice Oct 2014 #25
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #40
jen63 Oct 2014 #21
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #42
jen63 Oct 2014 #46
MohRokTah Oct 2014 #23
mopinko Oct 2014 #33
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #35
AtomicKitten Oct 2014 #44
MADem Oct 2014 #52
AndreaCG Oct 2014 #56
rhett o rick Oct 2014 #64
byoung6 Oct 2014 #27
A Simple Game Oct 2014 #41
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #28
neverforget Oct 2014 #67
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #68
Cryptoad Oct 2014 #29
stupidicus Oct 2014 #30
JDPriestly Oct 2014 #34
Robbins Oct 2014 #43
DonCoquixote Oct 2014 #47
WillyT Oct 2014 #49
MADem Oct 2014 #51
Tarheel_Dem Oct 2014 #60
Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #54
Tarheel_Dem Oct 2014 #58
Divernan Oct 2014 #59
KoKo Oct 2014 #63

Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:45 AM

1. I'm not wealthy, but fully agree that Warren, Sanders and others would be much better choices.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:48 AM

5. Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:53 AM

7. Amen....

Especially the not wealthy part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:34 AM

19. Same here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:49 AM

24. Absolutely n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:51 AM

26. Caveat lector, when it's Politico. Nonetheless, I fully agree


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:04 PM

55. I fully agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:26 PM

65. im glad these people exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:56 AM

2. Looks interesting...Will read whole article later.

Needed some good news. It's been too quiet with "Hillary the Inevitable" assumed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:10 AM

3. so i would already be considered a Rogue dem? i am ok with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dembotoz (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:40 PM

74. Personally, I like the label: "Rogue Dem." It sounds rather dashing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:32 AM

4. Bill and Hillary, while doing many great things, sold us out to Wall Street, why should I support

her until the point it's her vs. Republican dip shit? Bernie is the only one that has expressed interest in running and supports Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections, the only way to actually fix our problems. Hillary will be further to the right than Obama on fiscal issues, not something I want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:28 AM

18. Here's what the article has to say about Bernie/campaign finance reform.

Still, Clinton’s backers are carefully monitoring the donor courtship by all her prospective rivals. Even Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ open exploration of a long-shot run for the Democratic nomination reportedly is causing anxiety in Hillaryland. Sanders, who spent the weekend in Iowa and is headed to New Hampshire on Friday, has made inroads with wealthy liberals for whom campaign finance reform is a top issue and has signaled to them that he is all but certainly going to run, according to multiple sources.

Longtime Sanders backer Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s fame, stopped short of endorsing a Sanders presidential bid because he said he didn’t want to jeopardize the nonpartisan status of a nonprofit he’s financing to the tune of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” called Stamp Stampede. It’s working to rally support for campaign finance reforms ahead of both party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

But, Cohen said, “there are major donors that would support Bernie” for president because of his support for campaign finance reform, which has not been among Clinton’s core causes. “And if it ends up hurting the Democrats’ chances, so be it, because the most important thing is to get money out of politics,” said Cohen.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622_Page2.html#ixzz3FNJN98lm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 01:42 PM

48. I couldn't agree more! If people really want to fix government and solve most of the pressing

issues of our day, this is what they should support. They should also support ANYONE who takes up this cause, otherwise it will be the same stuff, different day if Hillary gets the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:50 AM

6. HRC is damaged goods

 

The GOP is just begging for her to run, because they know she will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:24 AM

14. SO very very damaged - more luggage than a filled 747 luggage compartment.

It was enough to sink her ambitions in 2008 and she's been piling it higher and deeper since then - particularly with her Wall Street/Big Banking bffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:56 AM

8. So our rogue donors are better than their rogue donors....

sure is interesting how the bigger bitch and moan money in politics crowd line up, isn't it.
The McCain-Feingold Act, which was so tweaked and tampered with with various versions has become moot with Citizens United. The SCOTUS always seems to side with big money and secret big money making most of campaign financing and spending a joke. Its already beginning as donors place their bets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:36 PM

73. If you read the article you see that many of these donors are not happy about the 'money in

politics' system we live under.

So, here's what those who 'bitch and moan' are thinking. To get the money OUT of politics we have to get people INTO politics first who will do that. But it's a vicious cycle, we CAN'T get them IN without money, yet. So, since there ARE wealthy donors willing to get behind those who ARE against the money in politics, to give THEM a chance, over the DLCers who WANT to keep the money in politics, they and we are willing to help get them in the door, where they can begin the process of dismantling the current corrupt system kept in place by Warmongers, crooked Bankers and other entities who want to be able to purchase the government for themselves, as they have been doing for quite some time.

Call it the 'hair of the dog'. It is the pragmatic thing to do just to get through the door.

It's like, eg, having a friend who works at an exclusive club for the wealthy only. You want to get in to talk to them but you can't, you don't have a key. So you ask your friend to use his/her key, to let you in. Once in, you can then do what you came to do.

No comparison at all with continuing to support the Wall St/MIC candidates, none whatsoever. They would never, in a million years, support Sanders or anyone like him. These donors would, that's the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:59 AM

9. I'll begrudgingly vote for HRC in the election

if she wins the primary.

Definitely won't vote for her in the primary. Frankly I don't see her garnering much enthusiastic support. Not sure how well she'd fare.

ETA: That said I really don't give a crap what a bunch of wealthy donors want. They're all out of touch with the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:17 AM

12. Hillary would be a win for the wealthy folk so this surprises me.

 

Regarding the vote for Hillary well..I'd eat a crap sandwich with a gun to my head. Without the gun, well...not so much!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:59 AM

10. "Can't even say if she's running." Here's a list of who's declared so far:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:25 AM

15. Wish I could individually rec this comment

Bravo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EileenFB (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:29 AM

31. me too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EileenFB (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:03 PM

53. Welcome to DU, EileenFB!

Glad you're here!

I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

Because no way am I going to desert or support a third party candidate or anybody who ends up giving the GOP the chance to appoint more Supreme Court justices. The red-team-nominated ones have been HORRIFIC, as we've seen. If it's Hillary, so be it. And overall - with the mushy middle in this country - it may have to be her. Whoever has the best chance to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Even if it's a less-than-perfect Dem, it's still a Dem and a BOATLOAD better than the "best" republi-CON.

We're ONE vote away from losing a woman's right to choose, and everyone else's right to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #53)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:26 PM

71. Thank you calimary

Have been lurking here for a few years and decided to take the leap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 07:48 PM

61. I am so glad you spoke up. If you have a point it must be that HRC shouldn't be expected to do

 

something that the other didn't do. Maybe we shouldn't have higher expectations for her.

It seems that you missed the point of the quote. Why isn't she, running or not, speaking out about the problems of the day? And if you think it's cute to pretend that she isn't running, oh my.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:23 PM

66. Don't you understand our language or culture?

Are you not from this country? No one's running yet. It's has nothing to do with HRC doing something different from the other (possible) candidates. You couldn't sign up to be put on the roster if you wanted to. But I did enjoy the laff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #66)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 12:33 AM

69. Did you not understand that you made a statement that had nothing to do with the

 

discussion? You tried to be cute and say that HRC isn't a formal candidate yet. So what? The fact that she hasn't announced, and that's all we are talking about is the announcement, has absolutely nothing to do with her vision for America. I will repeat, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CANDIDATE TO HAVE A VISION FOR AMERICA.

"Don't you understand our language or culture?" Yes, I do. I understand that HRC is in the pocket of Wall F'n Street. Why you would support that is the mystery. Do you want to see the wealth gap widen? Or do you really believe that HRC will do something to fix the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #69)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 08:40 AM

70. Very clever

You have tried to deflect the discussion by using the old and worn-out method of accusing me of deflection! Let's review:
1) I took a direct quote (a single point) that I focused in on - "Can't even say if she's running." - which let's face it it is a really pitiful attempt at an insult;
2) I then used a cute and gentle way of reminding the poster that the aspersion is in fact empty;
3) You then shifted the discussion to attacking me as well as the slur, "maybe we shouldn't have higher expectations for her". If you don't have any valid points to make I suppose you have to resort to insults and introduce as many additional (unfounded) points as you can;
4) I'm really getting tied of explaining these basic matters to you. Thanks for the laffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #70)

Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:26 PM

72. You "took a direct quote (single point)" and tried to be cute and insinuate that

 

HRC isn't the only one that hasn't committed. As if that means anything, and it doesn't. But talk about distraction, the OP is about HRC's qualifications to be president and you pick one quote to try to disparage. And I assumed you didn't like the whole OP but maybe I was wrong. Maybe you like all the OP except for the one statement.

H. Clinton is running for president and everyone knows it. Her supporters, knowing that they have Wall Street behind her, want her to keep a low profile as she is the heir apparent, until the last minute so she won't expose herself as a Wall Street supporter and foreign policy hawk. Your attempts at deflection fell flat.

And as for this: "Thanks for the laffs. " again, cute but no substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:05 AM

11. Interesting that people looking for big D democratic candidates are labeled Rogue

The values espoused by those named alternatives to Hillary and her 3rd way are traditionally core Democratic party values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:00 PM

36. Thank you. So true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 07:49 PM

62. Well said "hootin" nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:19 AM

13. Why is it rogue to be looking at other putative nominees than HRC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:26 AM

16. You know what I miss?

Democratic candidates explicitly saying, "I believe x, because I'm a Democrat and that's what we stand for." Our candidates used to do that. A lot. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, etc. But it's been a long time since I've heard that line strongly and consistently from our standard-bearers. What I really dread with a Hillary run -- aside from the inevitable corporatism and hawkishness -- is that it will be another dreary effort to "rise above party." And, as a lifelong Democrat, I've had quite enough of that lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:30 AM

32. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:00 PM

37. Maybe because a well-organized labor movement actually existed back then?

 

And exerted a lot of influence and pressure on the Democratic Party, back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:00 PM

38. Great post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:26 PM

45. Thank you. I’m tired of the leadership being so cowed by the right-wing establishment that they are

afraid to run on actual ideas – ideas supported by the majority of Americans. That’s one of the things that’s great about listening to Sanders, he isn’t afraid of loudly proclaiming that this country needs strong progressive policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 03:55 PM

50. Hear hear.

I could not possibly agree with your post more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:27 AM

17. Webb is not progressive -

I keep seeing this today and wonder who is pushing it. This guy worked for Reagan and was a republican for G-d's sake.

Bernie or Elizabeth would be an improvement over Hillary - but Jim Webb is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:02 PM

39. He isn't even interesting. Somebody posted a video of him. I got the impression he is a hack

and is running to try to draw votes away from Bernie and Warren. I could be wrong, but I was not at all impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:03 PM

57. Someone even called him a populist!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:35 AM

20. Who is going to represent working class families after next crash? It won't be Hillary. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:40 AM

22. Clinton Foundation will host a 5 star international conference on the problem

First class/private jet travel, presidential suite accommodations at luxury hotels, A List celebrity guests & their little dogs, too (google how Clinton Foundation paid for first class travel for Ashley Judd and her dog), staged photo ops for all attendees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:50 AM

25. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:06 PM

40. Is that a way to indebt celebrities to them so that the celebrities will feel compelled

and committed to back Hillary. Is that the the Clintons' intent?

I think that if they are doing good things with their Foundation, Hillary should concentrate on that and forget about running for president.

It looks bad to be collecting money for a campaign and for a charity of the importance of the Clinton Foundation at the same time. It's just not appropriate.

If the Clinton Foundation were some small non-profit with a low-key fund-raising campaign, that would be OK. But that is not the case.

This looks off-key, grabby. Sorry, but it does not have a good feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:38 AM

21. The more the merrier.

Hopefully Sanders or Warren will would help bring the narrative to the left. That doesn't mean that if Clinton's elected that she'll govern from the left, but anything which helps bring the party to left is a good thing, in my opinion. Wouldn't mind seeing Sherrod Brown throw his hat into the ring either, even if just tapped as VP. His name recognition isn't country wide, but he's a true liberal. Not to mention that it seems just like Bernie, he hasn't capitalized on the free money floating around inside the beltway. His wife is formidable in her own right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jen63 (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:10 PM

42. Sherrod Brown is a great liberal, but he does not have the charisma in front of a group that

Elizabeth Warren has or the sense of wisdom, experience and utter sincerity that Bernie Sanders has. Bernie Sanders knows where he stands on almost every issue and yet is a good listener. Bernie Sanders is a practiced campaigner and can talk with ease in just about any situation to just about anyone. The result of the town hall meetings he is used to in Vermont, I suppose.

Elizabeth Warren brings freshness and enthusiasm that no other candidate has or could have.

I like Sherrod Brown, but to be honest, his voice is a problem for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #42)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:47 PM

46. I disagree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:41 AM

23. Okay, that's about the STUPIDEST anti-Hillary argument I ever read.

 

"Somebody with a great plan for America would not be toying with the decision to run."

Completely STUPID anti-Hillary argument.

It's 2014 for God's sake. The mid terms haven't even happened yet!

It would be political suicide to announce now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:33 AM

33. i hate that whole meme.

 

are these people political virgins or something?
do they not know that announcements come when announcements come? that an announcement is big deal. do they think candidates blab that to the first person who asks?
anyone who would do so is too stupid to be dog catcher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:57 AM

35. I understand what it means.

If Hillary really had a clear vision of what she wanted to change in America, DU would be talking about it because she would be taking about it.

And this is part (ONLY PART) of what is wrong with the idea of a Hillary candidacy.

Hillary's potential candidacy is about Hillary.

It is not about the change that she believes very deeply, so deeply to the point she cannot stop from talking about it, that we need in America.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't stop talking about the changes she sees that America needs. Bernie Sanders is on the radio nearly every week and talking to people every chance he gets about very specific changes like changes to our federal campaign finance and wages and all the other things he talks about. Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders speak of the changes we need with deep conviction, eloquence, humility and you can feel their emotions and their spirits are intent on accomplishing the changes they see we need.

Not so with Hillary. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are driven by their desires to boost the middle class. They are bursting with enthusiasm for the task.

Hillary --- what is she going to do? Change student loan law? Unsign the Telecommunications Bill that her husband signed? Reinstate welfare for those hard times when we have high unemployment? She talks vaguely about welfare reform, but what would she do about it? Would she reinstate food stamp money? Would she put Wall Street magnates in jail if their companies violate the law? Would she lower interest on student loans? Campaign for more money for higher education? Try to find ways to cut the cost of federal law enforcement and prisons?

What does Hillary stand for? And does she really believe in changing America? What causes will she fight for? Does she really care at all? So far in my view she does not begin to measure up in terms of dedication and depth to the likes of Elizabeth Warren who spent years doing careful research into the economic challenges to the middle class or to the likes of Bernie Sanders who attracts many conservative voters with his common sense determination and dedication to helping middle class Americans.

I see Hillary as a candidate with a head start because of name recognition but also a big problem because of NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act and a number of other bills and programs and of course personal problems, all baggage from Bill Clinton's presidency.

I do not think Hillary would make nearly as good a candidate as either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Hillary is past her political prime. They are all about the same age, but Hillary cannot muster the enthusiasm and cannot communicate the courage and faith that Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:13 PM

44. Reminds me of this.

 

.... "because I deserve this."

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/759670/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 03:58 PM

52. It's Divide and Conquer POLITICO stirring the pot, as they do.

They're no friends of Democrats--never have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #52)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:01 PM

56. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:03 PM

64. If you are down to using the word "stupid" twice in your argument, I sense a certain

 

desperation.

One doesn't have to declare their candidacy to express their vision for America. The real problem is that HRC doesn't want to tell us that her vision for America is the same as Goldman-Sachs.

Since the "stupid" card has been played, I counter with, it's stupid to think that HRC will stand with the 99% and fight Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:08 AM

27. If HRC is our candidate

I may be voting for a third party, I have threatened before but this time I will have to do it, the democratic party bosses seem to have gone over to wallstreet and the other monied interests completely. Since 2007 I have heard big populist talk but no action, and ya can't blame it all on the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byoung6 (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:08 PM

41. No may about it in my case, no more lesser of two evils for me.

My life is getting too short, for the sake of my grandchildren I will now always vote for the best candidate.

How else can the best person win unless you vote for them? No more party before Country. With the exception of Carter I have settled for "electable" for 30 years and all I've gotten for it is a downward slide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:12 AM

28. I can already hear it,....

 

"Sanger wants Rand Paul to win."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #28)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:26 PM

67. Right on cue post #29. Nice call!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #67)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 10:33 PM

68. Wow, 7 minutes later.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:19 AM

29. Papa Paul and little Bambino ,,, loves it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:25 AM

30. good for them

 

let's hope they starve that particular beast, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:41 AM

34. Gives me hope! Thanks for posting!

I like both Elizabeth Warren (time for a woman and a very, very strong personality to boost her campaign) and Bernie Sanders (experience and understands every issue, very fatherly).

If they both run, I will have a tough time choosing between them. If neither of them runs, it would be sad, very sad for our country.

We don't have a lot of income, but we send very small amounts to both candidates. If they both ran, it would be hard to pick which to vote for, but it would bring new issues into our debates and the American public would hear a refreshing point of view for the first time since 1972

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:11 PM

43. Donors

There are those out there who have money but are liberal.

Anti-war
Although wealthy don't like wall Street influence In politics
believe climate change Is real and we need to combat it
Believe people working aren't making enough

It's Intresting they like Biden more than Clintons.

Assuming Elizabeth Warren doesn't run and Biden doesn't run to avoid battle with Clintons they may support

O'Malley,Webb,or even Bernie Sanders.Who is technically a Independent even though he votes more like a Liberal Democrat than
some who call themselves Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 01:22 PM

47. these folks might be wealthy

all the same, if they want my pennies, where do I send the bloody check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 03:46 PM

49. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 03:56 PM

51. One word--POLITICO.

They're so good at the FUD thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:48 PM

60. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:03 PM

54. Hey, whoever thinks they have what it takes, put it on the table.

There has been candidates who tried before and there will be plenty afterwards. We sure do not need a run like the GOP had in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:36 PM

58. Why would donors, wealthy or otherwise, be ready if she hasn't announced her intentions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:46 PM

59. That's a fair question to all the donors to Ready for Hillary PAC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:03 PM

63. It's Definitely a Good Read...Recommend it to All!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread