General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's be honest....nothing progressive can happen under HRC as president.
She'll be better than Jeb, but that's not saying much of anything.
She won't fight for working people(she can't, as a free trade supporter).
She won't ever stand up to Wall Street(the fact that she's backed everything they want so far proves she can never break with them later).
She won't stand up for the poor(her continued defense of the signing of the welfare reform bill in '96 proves that nothing Bobby Kennedy cared about means anything to her).
She won't get us out of the Middle East(she still buys into the "war can SO be liberal" delusion.
She won't make our foreign policy any less death-based at all.
She'll appoint some bland centrists to the Court and that will be the entirety of the thing-we can't even assume her appointees will overturn Citizens United(since that decision is probably the only reason a right-wing candidate like her happens to BE the frontrunner for our party's nomination at this point).
No great change will be possible. No one will be excited and galvanized by her swearing in or by any speech she will ever give.
All she can be is lesser-evil, a place holder for the corporate-military rulers.
Four or eight more years of bland centrism makes any further progressive policies in the future impossible. All the locks will be in place.
A vote to nominate HRC is a vote to give up, forever, on anything beyond tinkering at the edges. It's a vote to leave politics solely to a self-appointed elite...and to leave the tens of millions of people who are out in the cold in this system to STAY out in the cold.
Maybe she can "win", but just holding the office, by itself, isn't anything without core values, without passion, without a clear sense of who's side the person we elect is on.
I will support her if nominated...but let's just admit now that her victory will mean no more than Bill's victory in '96...and that victory turned out to be, for all practical purposes, meaningless.
We don't have to settle for "not quite as brutal", people. The country isn't THAT right-wing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Roland99
(53,342 posts)She's the epitome of DLC/Third Way (backward) thinking!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (Aug 2014)
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth. (Aug 2014)
'nuff said
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (Aug 2014)
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth. (Aug 2014)
Have a trade prosecutor to enforce the trade agreements. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: Supported NAFTA in 1998; opposed CAFTA since 2005. (Jan 2008)
Criticized trade pacts for weak labor standards. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: for NAFTA while First Lady; now against CAFTA. (Oct 2007)
Export from big agribusiness, but also from small farmers. (Aug 2007)
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers. (Aug 2007)
No fast-track authority for this president. (Aug 2007)
Better approach: real trade adjustment assistance. (Aug 2007)
End tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. (Jun 2007)
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)
Globalization should not substitute for humanization. (Jun 1999)
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights. (Oct 2000)
Voting Record
Though Bill supported it, Hillary opposed NAFTA. (Oct 2007)
Voted against CAFTA despite Bill Clinton’s pushing NAFTA. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (Jun 2007)
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)That is not encouraging 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Stimulus better than market-led recovery
negative on the economic scale on that is a GOOD thing....
you are trying way too hard to make those facts work with your "narrative"
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)numbers but according to you i am failing. On the other scales/measures she and I agree but the economics has me baffled. Your assumption that I have a "narrative" with her is totally off base and BS. Disgusting.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)what her husband's done. they're both bought off by corporate interests, just like jeb. gay marriage is about all she can brag about, and that's just cause rich people LIKE gay marriage. hell, the head of apple is gay. if you're rich, you and your partner/spouse can pool assets and get richer.
if you're poor, you and your partner can starve together -- straight or gay, so what does it matter.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)marriage equality (that's what non Republicans call gay marriage) for many, many years and was in fact among the last national Democrats to get on board. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent to opposed marriage equality, shit fucking tons of it and that money did not flow from dollar donations.
Rich people like gay marriage. What a pile of stinking shit that is. Just bullshit.
This is what bugs me about some of Hillary's critics, so eager to attack her that in the process they come off sounding right wing and bigoted.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)With the exception of the IWR -- which Obama escaped having to vote on, since he wasn't in the Senate yet -- her record as Senator was more progressive than his.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)not a particularly convincing argument
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Wouldn't a republican do those things?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying is we don't have to nominate someone who is still an all-out hawk on foreign policy and an all out lackey to Wall Street just to flip the Court.
We can win and still keep our dignity.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but campaign for her if and when she wins the Primary....if she is such a "disaster" as some loud minority on DU seem think she will be...why would HE do that?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie knows she can't be a progressive president.
Why even pretend workers and the poor would matter to her?
Why even pretend anything positive can happen when she still thinks we should be militarily active in the Middle East, a part of the world where U.S. force has brought nothing but death and misery?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Now what were you saying about "nothing Progressive could happen"?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)times, but you really don't need to keep doing it, most of us get where you're coming from.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)but if you have some different information I'd be happy to see it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
I re-evaluated & changed my mind on gay marriage: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
$5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Strongly Favors topic 13
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth: Favors topic 13
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
OpEd: More aggressive than most Dems on foreign policy: Opposes topic 17
Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
$100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
$100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Medical marijuana now; wait-and-see on recreational pot: Opposes topic 19
Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use: Opposes topic 19
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Crime.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Government_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Immigration.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Jobs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Technology.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How she voted....what she said....how she was rated by other organizations....and I even cited the sources...if you bothered to look...
There are none so blind!
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)of votes, etc.
her record would be the full record of all her actual votes, the texts of what she voted for -- and what she didn't vote for, who lobbied her, who she took money from, and the like.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)where that came from !
And if you read it....you will see that there IS her actual voting record included in that.....but of course....actual reading would require you to possibly ruin a good "narrative"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care
I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude
Q: Do you believe personally that life begins at conception?
A: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.
But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy
From my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question [of abortion].
I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government’s one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.
And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and ‘80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions
When Clinton said that pro-choice and pro-life people could find common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through increased access to birth control, it was called "an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run i 2008." The Wall Street Journal described her alleged changes in position as a "makeover and move to the center that she's now attempting." NPR saw Clinton spinning in circles: "She is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time."
Yet she was not changing her position on anything. For her entire time in public life, Clinton has been pro-choice and has supported access to birth control. Pointing out that such access would reduce the number of abortions, something anti-abortion forces ought to favor, cannot fairly be described as a shift in any direction.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 , Mar 25, 2008
Consistently uses Dem. Party line, "safe, legal, and rare"
After Senator Hillary Clinton gave a 2005 speech restating her long-held view that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," some pundits accused her of being "transparent" and taking a "poll-tested path," despite the fact that the formulation had been a consistent part of Democratic rhetoric on the issue for over a decade. The speech was cited again and again whenever a journalist or commentator wanted to show that Clinton was "moving to the center," evidence that she was massaging her actual views for political advantage. Yet McCain's varying statements on abortion haven't seemed to diminish his reputation for straight talk.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.166 , Mar 25, 2008
1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion
In 1974, Hillary met William F. Harrison, a prominent abortion doctor in Arkansas, who became her gynecologist and friend. In a series of interview for this book, Harrison shed some light on the development of Hillary’s pro-choice.
Harrison is quick to point out that Hillary never saw him for an abortion. Harrison says he met Hillary simply as a result of her yearly ob-gyn exam.
This is an important point, since it would mean that Hillary’s support does not stem from a personal experience in which she had the procedure. Rather, Harrison estimates that a reason for her pro-choice stance is that she is a product of an age “where she would have had friends who had illegal abortions. I am sure that was part of it.”
Harrison says that when he met Hillary, she was already steadfast in her support of Roe v. Wade. He sees her upbringing as a Methodist as no reason to believe she would be against abortion. “Hillary is a Methodist. The Methodist Church is very strongly pro-choice.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 49-50 , Jul 18, 2007
1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion
Mrs. Clinton, during her efforts to revolutionize the health care industry, said 1993 that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” This prompted anxieties over the prospect of taxpayer-funded abortions, sparking the Coates Amendment, which sought to strip abortion funding from the plan.
The first lady allowed for a “conscience exemption” in which doctors and hospitals would not be forced to perform abortions. Pro-lifers were relieved; still, they could not fathom that their tax dollars might be used to find what they saw as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
Mrs. Clinton’s words also ignited fears among moderate and conservative Christians over the availability of the abortion pill, RU-486, under her health care plan. One of her husband’s first acts in office was to push the pill to market through an expedited FDA approval process that was criticized by pro-lifers as allegedly too quick for the safety of the women who would take the pill.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.124-125 , Jul 18, 2007
1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century
On January 22, 1999, Hillary took an unprecedented step for a first lady by delivering a speech to NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the premier advocacy group for legal, unrestricted abortion. Speaking to the group in DC, she stated her goal of “keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century,” a slogan that would become the mantra for her position. She shared revealing remarks beyond conventional pro-choice sentiments: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.191 , Jul 18, 2007
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases
Later today, the president will veto a bill passed by Congress to support stem cell research. I co-chair the Alzheimer’s Caucus in the Senate. I’ve worked on helping to boost funding for research to look for cures and a way to prevent so many devastating diseases. And we know that stem cell research holds the key to our understanding more about what we can do. When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research. This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right’s dominance
On the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed a series of executive orders undoing the draconian policies of the Reagan-Bush era relating to abortion, contraception, and family planning.
Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill’s pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration’s first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun.
The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to suc personal questions was over.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.256-257 , Jun 5, 2007
Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice
The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to such questions wa over, as was the ascendancy of the conservative movement.
Yet, Hillary’s views of sexuality and the exercise of women’s reproductive rights were far more conservative than perceived at the time. While some of her friends had undergone abortions and ha been promiscuous, she had not. The idea of choosing to abort a child she had conceived would have been totally out of character and at odds with her own values. One of the fortunate facts of her life was that she was of the generation whose sexuality was fashioned in large measure by the pill and its easy availability. Her own difficulty in conceiving a child had only intensified her deeply held belief that abortion, for anyone, was a personal choice that should be made with the greatest reluctance.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.257 , Jun 5, 2007
Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women
Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions, read the New York Times. It was 2005, and the story was about a speech Hillary had given. “Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
Hillary said: “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”
Hillary is correct. Abortion is tragic. But why? What makes an abortion “sad, even tragic” is that an unborn child loses his life. Her “sad, even tragic” comment is not the first indication that Hillary believes it is indeed a child that is ripped from the womb during an abortion. In 2003, while debating a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions, Hillary referred to the unborn child as “the child, the fetus, your baby.”
[Nevertheless,] Hillary has spent a lifetime fighting to keep abortions legal.
Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p.134-136 , May 14, 2007
Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market
In the last few years, we’ve seen major breakthroughs in research and effectiveness of contraceptives. For example, Plan B is a new emergency contraceptive that can prevent a pregnancy after another contraceptive has failed or after unprotected sex. I fought for years to get Plan B on the market, so that fewer women will face the choice of abortion. It is now available for over-the-counter use by adult women. I have proposed Prevention First, a bill that focuses on prevention of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education, emphasizing responsible decision-making and expanded access to contraception. With these efforts, it’s my hope that the abortion rate will fall further.
Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p.301 , Dec 12, 2006
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too
Hillary has spoken clearly about the importance of respecting such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade. Her commitment to supporting Roe and working to reduce the number of abortions [includes] reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. As First Lady, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system.
Source: PAC website, www.hillpac.com, “Biography” , Nov 17, 2006
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception
In 2006 Hillary teamed up with nominally pro-life Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and pushed to increase federal funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in order to “increase awareness” about unintended pregnancies.
Senator Clinton co-wrote an editorial with Reid titled, “Abortion Debate Shuns Prevention.” The piece said, “As two senators on opposite sides of the abortion debate, we recognize that one side will not suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs And we believe that, while disagreeing, we can work together to find common ground.“
The ”common ground,“ was, once again, increased government--in this case government programs to promote contraception. The Prevention First Act, as they named it, would increase accessibility and ”awareness and understanding“ of emergency contraception. They aimed to ensure that sex education programs have medically accurate information about contraception and ”end insurance discrimination against women.“
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 96-97 , Oct 11, 2006
Partial birth exceptions for life-threatening abnormalities
In 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton [commented] about the anatomically correct drawings I used to demonstrate the partial birth abortion procedure:
CLINTON: The visual aids show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. We should have a chart that demonstrates the tragic abnormalities that confront women forced with this excruciatingly difficult decision.
SANTORUM: Do we consider a child who may have an abnormality to be less of a child?
CLINTON: Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities or babies who are in such serious physical condition that they will not live outside the womb?
SANTORUM: No, if--
CLINTON: That is the point.
SANTORUM: Do you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not? The Americans with Disabilities Act says we treat all of God's children the same.
CLINTON: I value every single life and every single person.
Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.258-261 , Apr 30, 2006
Government should have no role in abortion decision
Here is the paragraph in Hillary's speech that everyone focused on:
This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
The phrase that the neo-conservative pundits all left out, in describing the speech as remarkable, is that the abortion decision is "also one in which the government should have no role." Put that in, and the rest of her description is totally unremarkable.
Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p. 54 , Oct 17, 2005
We can find common ground on abortion issue
Hillary advocates finding common ground with opponents: Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supports, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion--particularly members of religious groups--asserting that there was “common ground” to be found.
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 87 , Sep 30, 2005
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania
When I defend my pro-choice position in the debate over abortion in our country, I frequently refer to Romania, where pregnancy could be monitored on behalf of the state, & to China, where it could be forcibly terminated. One reason I continue to oppose efforts to criminalize abortion is that I do not believe any government should have the power to dictate, through law or police action, a woman’s most personal decision.
[The Romanian dictatorship in the 1980s] banned birth control and abortion, insisting that women bear children for the sake of the state. Women told me how they had been carted from their workplace once a month to be examined by government doctors whose task was to make sure they weren’t using contraceptives or aborting pregnancies. I could not imagine a more humiliating experience.
In Romania and elsewhere, many children were born unwanted or into families that could not afford to care for them. They became wards of the state, warehoused in orphanages.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 354-5 , Nov 1, 2003
Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement
Mother Teresa had just delivered a speech against abortion, and she wanted to talk to me. Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman's right to choose and told me so. Over the years, she sent me dozens of notes & messages with the same gentle entreaty. Mother Teresa never lectured or scolded me; her admonitions were always loving & heartfelt. I had the greatest respect for her opposition to abortion, but I believe that it is dangerous to give any state the power to enforce criminal penalties against women & doctors. I consider that a slippery slope to state control in China & Communist Romania. I also disagreed with her opposition--and that of the Catholic Church--to birth control. However, I support the right of people of faith to speak out against abortion and try to dissuade women, without coercion or criminalization, from choosing abortion instead of adoption. Mother Teresa and I found much common ground in many other areas including the importance of adoption.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.417-418 , Nov 1, 2003
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice
Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?
A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk
Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it “infanticide.” Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose
I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 , Jan 22, 2000
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC , Jan 22, 1999
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion
I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC , Jan 22, 1999
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems
Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. , Jan 22, 1999
Supports parental notice & family planning
If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.
I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.
Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 , Feb 3, 1997
Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning
The Cairo Document, drafted at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, reaffirms that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” And it recognizes “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so.” Women & men should have the right to make this most intimate of all decisions free of discrimination or coercion.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p. 63 , Sep 25, 1996
No abortion for sex selection in China
Many on the left advocate a policy of abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time during the pregnancy, with no state regulation or limitation allowed, and paid for by the taxpayers. This extreme position is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. It means a government policy of allowing abortion as a means of birth control and sex selection. Most people know this is simply wrong. (Even Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke out against abortion for sex selection in China.)
States should have the right to regulate and limit abortions. At the very least, parental consent or notification should be required before abortions are performed on minors; states should be allowed to impose waiting periods; and late-term abortions should be prohibited except to save the life of the mother.
Source: Agenda For America, by Haley Barbour, p.161 , Apr 25, 1996
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus
Hillary’s votes all echo the liberal line in the Senate
She opposed the ban on partial birth abortions
She came down against criminalizing harm to a fetus during an attack on the mother
She opposed a travel ban to Cuba
She opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
She backed extending the ban on assault rifles for 10 years
She was against Bush’s tax cuts
She opposed repealing the estate tax
She opposed limits on class action lawsuits.
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 85-86 , Oct 11, 2005
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.
Clinton is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”
Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.
Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.
Clinton sponsored expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:
prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
Congress makes the following findings:
Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.
Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006
Paperback: Barack Obama
vs. Mitt Romney
On The Issues
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.
Clinton sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Clinton scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.
Clinton sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.
Clinton co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.
Clinton signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009
Satisfied? Or do you need me to do this for every single one of those issues....because I CAN!
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)special compared to many other Democrats on either but good for her she is solid here and generally on civil rights/access. Nothing special for a Democrat but good and solid.
Get past that and you've got a corporate friendly, Turd Way interventionist.
I don't even see her as very socially liberal she supports Hyde to the best of my knowledge, she only reluctantly supports medical marijuana and is still a drug warrior otherwise, she was slow to come around on marriage equity, she favors the death penalty best I can recall.
Socially moderate is what she is. She isn't on the leading edge of anything on the social justice front.
We know where she is economically - corporate friendly, free trading, regulation reluctant to opposed, capital focused to obsessed. Capitalist true believer but unlike her friends across the aisle doesn't come with so much belief in magic beans so grasps that some taxes will have to be collected and that large numbers of desperate starving people risks being disruptive and dangerous to morale.
One can serve only one master, hers is capital.
We know she is a hawk. I'm sure you will try to argue the point and good luck.
The civil liberties orientation is unclear but isn't overly encouraging when comparing to others with her military and corporate predilections. She did vote against the telecom immunity bill when Obama went in favor after saying he wouldn't but my feeling at the time was it was a safe bet to score political points because she knew it was going to pass but maybe there is some hope here.
I'm sure many will be okay with her on gun control, isn't a personal selling point as I don't go in for curtailing civil liberties only expansion ideologically.
The
Environment? Too tied to the corporations to be strong here, mixed is the best it can be.
Education? I tend to think she would not have gone on the attack against the teacher's unions like Obama/Duncan who just continue and expand on Bush's garbage yet have no faith whatsoever she will change the course set because the reason I don't think she would have done it was pure calculation, she wasn't going to rock the boat with a major constituency like that with another election in front of her in a field with so many women. Bad for branding.
I don't know where she is on funding NASA, the sciences, and R&D doesn't seem like a focus or a negative.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)besides....REAL Democrats see right through you....have you seen all the latest polls? If you haven't I can show you those too....
I started with A...for Abortion....
but lets go to Issue Number 2 on that list now shall we? Budget and Economy....
We need bankruptcy reform, but we need the right kind
In the Senate, Clinton voted for an overhaul to the bankruptcy system that would have made debt forgiveness more difficult for borrowers to obtain. She said in 2008 that she regretted the vote, but it still could become a sticking point, as it did when she faced off with then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
The credit card lobby pushed hard for the legislation, which did not prevail when Clinton voted for it in 2001, but did become law after another attempt by Congress in 2005. (Clinton did not vote in that round, telling reporters she missed the vote to be with Bill Clinton after his heart surgery.)
"The right kind of reform is necessary," Clinton said in a press release about the legislation in 2001. "We're on our way toward that goal, and I hope we can achieve final passage of a good bankruptcy reform bill this year"
During her initial presidential campaign, she said she would have voted against the 2005 bill that eventually passed.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014
1998: Personally lobbied Congress against bankruptcy bill
In 1998 I had met with First Lady Hillary Clinton to discuss the proposed bankruptcy legislation, and after our meeting she had declared that she would fight on behalf of working families, against "that awful bill." Now the president was under enormous pressure from the banks to sign the bill, but in the last days of his presidency, urged on by his wife, President Clinton stood strong with struggling families. With no public fanfare, he vetoed the industry's bill.
In "Living History," Hillary writes, "proposed bankruptcy reform moving through Congress threatened to undermine the spousal and child support many women depend on." The New York Times also reported: "[Mrs. Clinton] wrote dozens of personal notes to lawmakers last year as the [bankruptcy] bills made their torturous way through the Congressional process. And she, along with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), played what the bill's opponents say was a decisive role in helping to kill the legislation last year."
Source: A Fighting Chance, by Elizabeth Warren, p. 65&288 , Apr 22, 2014
The economy is not working for middle class families
Tonight President Bush claimed that the state of our union is strong. But for too many American families, the true “state of their lives” is one of economic anxiety and uncertainty.
After seven years of stagnant wages, declining incomes and increasing inequality, our families are working harder and harder and still falling behind. President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families. Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same--a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving 21st century economy to the brink of recession.
We need a President who understands the urgent economic challenges our families face and who will work as hard for middle-class families as they work for America. I intend to be that President for the American people.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address , Jan 28, 2008
Look back to 1990s to see how I’d be fiscally responsible
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Well, fiscal responsibility is a very high priority for me. We don’t have to go back very far in our history, in fact just to the 1990s, to see what happens when we do have a fiscally responsible budget that does use rules of discipline to make sure that we’re not cutting taxes or spending more than we can afford. I will institute those very same approaches. You can’t do it in a year. It’ll take time. But the economy will grow again when we start acting fiscally responsible. And then we can save money in the government by cutting out private contractors, closing loopholes, getting the health care system to be more efficient. We’ll do all of this at the same time, but the results will take awhile for us to actually see.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages
Families are struggling with rising costs and falling wages. They’re working harder than ever in the last six years. Productivity has gone up 18%, but the average family income has fallen $1,300. We have now more than 45 million people living without health care, and millions more who are underinsured. We have 12 million children living in poverty. We have more people going bankrupt last year than graduating from college. Yet these are all invisible to the president and his administration.
And we know that for those who worry about passing on this huge debt that has been blown up in the last six years--because remember, six years ago we had a balanced budget and a surplus--well, if you’re a grandparent worried about passing that debt on to your grandchildren, you’re invisible.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
2000: Eight years of a great economy is not enough
"My opponent goes around saying, '8 years is enough,'" Hillary said on October 22. "The first time I heard it, I thought, well, maybe I had misheard. 8 years of a great economy. 8 years of declining crime rates. 8 years of improving education scores. 8 years of expanding health care. Where is he living and who is he representing?"
Source: What A Party!, by Terry McAuliffe, p.238 , Jan 23, 2007
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005
While opposing tax cuts, Clinton has supported hundreds of bills boosting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. During her first two years in office, Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.
In 2003 and 2004 Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers’ dollars. She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most “expensive” senator during that time.
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 55-56 , Oct 11, 2006
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium
Q: Should taxpayer money should be used to build such a stadium in Manhattan?
CLINTON: I don’t think that’s a good use of that space or of taxpayer dollars. There is work we need to do to upgrade the infrastructure. That’s why I support the Second Avenue subway. That’s why I support the East Side connector, a rail link to La Guardia and to JFK. I will go to the Senate to continue the work on Penn Station and others that Senator Moynihan has started.
LAZIO: I think it’s important to get the Jets and Giants back. This is not just a plan for a stadium; it’s also a plan for expansion of convention space. I don’t think this should be funded with public money entirely. But I believe that this is an important initiative to build jobs for New York.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget
Q: How will you pay for all the new programs you’ve proposed?
A: We have a surplus after 7 years of good economic leadership in our country. We should pay down the national debt, secure Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and provide affordable tax cuts. I have been very careful to cost out my plan because I believe in a balanced budget. That’s why I reject the large tax cut that independent experts have said is more than a trillion dollars that my opponent has proposed.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY , Sep 13, 2000
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy
Q: Americans spend millions at the local casino in Niagara Falls, Canada. Why not have a casino built on this side of the border to help our economy?
LAZIO: I don’t believe that it’s a good idea for us to be building casinos. I would allow the state of New York to make these decisions. But in the end, I’m not a big fan of gambling. Economic development in the area is an important issue, but I would not focus on the quick hit, the cheap hit in gambling. I’d focus on the kind of jobs where our children can afford to stay here, raise a family, buy their own home.
CLINTON: I know how hard the people in Niagara are working to try to turn their economy around, and if they believe that a casino would help attract more tourists back, I would support that. I leave that to their judgment. But there has to be more of a strategy about the upstate economy --tax credits to help jobs be created, creating the regional skills, alliances, commitment to work force development, etc.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY , Sep 13, 2000
Protect next generation by paying off national debt
We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create. Franklin Roosevelt said that Americans of his generation had a rendezvous with destiny. Well, I think our generation has a rendezvous with responsibility. It’s time to protect the next generation by using our budget surplus to pay down the national debt, save Social Security, modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, & provide targeted tax cuts to the families who need them most.
Source: Address to the Democratic National Convention , Aug 14, 2000
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods
We have lived with the benefits, for 50 years now, of the agreements that were made at the end of WWII, coming out of Bretton Woods to create new financial architectures. Today, we have outlived the usefulness of that particular set of arrangements. And we now have to face up to creating a new architecture that will help us tackle runaway global capitalism’s worst effects; ensure social safety nets for the most vulnerable; address the debt burden that is crushing many of our poorest nations.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France , Jun 17, 1999
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens
Some think that the market can do anything if left alone. Others undermine the benefits that free enterprise brings. We have to create a balance. How do we enjoy the benefits without suffering from the excesses? The economy can create the jobs... and wealth; it can create consumers and the producers of goods. But the economy cannot create citizens. Government can only respond to citizens, not create them. Only civil society can do that. And it is time for us to renew and expand civil society.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France , Jun 17, 1999
Invest in people instead of “smokestack chasing”
Remember what we thought of as economic development. “Smokestack chasing” is what it was called. If we could convince someone to get out of old dying Detroit and move to Arkansas, we were going to be moving right along. We have seen how many of those industries that we got to move from Detroit have moved to Bangladesh. We have seen that economic development cannot depend on what kind of jobs we bring as much as on what we do to invest in our people to generate more of our own economic opportunities.
Source: Unique Voice, p. 43-44 , Feb 3, 1997
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record
Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%
Clinton and Obama battled over their votes on bankruptcy bills and an amendment to cap interest charged on credit. Clinton said, “There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling: to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. I voted for limiting to 30% what credit card companies could charge. Senator Obama did not.” Obama responded, “I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling.”
Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. When the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. As for whether the 30% cap was too high, that’s certainly a matter of opinion.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate , Jan 21, 2008
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter
Clinton also said she had opposed the overall bankruptcy bill, which made it more difficult for consumers to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy; Obama opposed it, too. She didn’t vote on the final bill, which passed by a 74-25 vote, because it was the day of her husband’s heart surgery.
Obama mischaracterized Clinton’s comments on her vote for an earlier, 2001 bankruptcy bill. Obama said, “Sen. Clinton said she voted for [the 2001 bill] but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.“
That’s not exactly what Clinton said. When asked if she regretted voting for the 2001 bill, Clinton answered, ”Sure I do. It never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with. I was happy it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate , Jan 21, 2008
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders
OBAMA: When we talked a while back, we talked about the bankruptcy bill, which had been pushed by the banks and the financial institutions, that said, basically, it will be harder for folks who have been lured into these teaser rates and then see their credit cards go up to 30%, that they would have a tougher time getting out of bankruptcy. In the last debate, Clinton said she voted for it but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.
CLINTON: I regretted voting for the bankruptcy bill and I was happy that it didn’t get into law. By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. There was a particular amendment that is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.
Source: [Xref Obama] 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. debate , Jan 21, 2008
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.
Congressional Summary:
Supplemental appropriations for:
Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
Clean Water (EPA)
Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
Energy Development (DOE)
Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
Temporary Increase in Food Assistance
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41): Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.
It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.
Reference: Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act; Bill S.3604&HR7110 ; vote number 2008-S206 on Sep 26, 2008
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932 ; vote number 2005-363 on Dec 21, 2005
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.
Clinton co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages
Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.
One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:
realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.
It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.
In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.
Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy.
Clinton co-sponsored reforming mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy
Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - refinance mortgages originally financed through a qualified subprime loan.
Makes FY2008 appropriations for emergency needs of states and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for foreclosure mitigation activities.
Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 - Authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. Creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.
Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of a consumer.
Source: Foreclosure Prevention Act (S.2636) 2008-S2636 on Feb 13, 2008
I CAN keep this up so....
Hekate
(90,674 posts)I think they count on most of us not having the energy to keep fighting the inaccuracies/untruths.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)times.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And I was right, the word "Hillary" never appeared anywhere in my post.
So I'm a bit confused about WTF you mean.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)But you missed the point. You accused one DUer of posting pro-Clinton things IN DEFENSE of her a million times, never mentioning it's in response to BS posted about her a million times.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Because OPs like this are rec bait.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's projection on your part.
Why are you bothering to repudiate the OP, when you always call on the party to nominate the least-progressive candidate in the race, any race, no matter what?
When you don't care about the poor(you've proven that by defending the massive cuts in social spending Clinton agreed to)or workers(you've proven that by continuing to defend trade liberalization).
The reason you're backing HRC is precisely BECAUSE she won't be progressive. That's why the centrists like her. You backed Bill for that reason to...because you want the Democratic party to abandon people who've been left out in the cold since the Reagan years.
So really, why does it bother you that people point out that HRC will be a moderate-to-conservative president?
That is what you want, after all.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those years were a right-wing dead zone and they never had to be. The party never had to throw working people and the poor under the bus to win in '92...nor did we have to nominate a death penalty freak at a time when the murder right was declining anyway.
Eight years of nothing but betrayal. Eight years of a "Democratic" president caring more about increasing corporate profits by pushing NAFTA through than he ever cared about trying to get a worthwhile form of universal healthcare passed.
And yes, welfare as a status quo wasn't working...but the answer was jobs programs and rebuilding the inner cities, not just throwing the poor to the wolves and accepting every right-wing slur on the suppose lack of morality of poor women as if it were Gospel.
Other than a half-hearted endorsement of choice(coupled with an endorsement of the idea that women who had abortions should pretty much be shamed for making that decision)and the most tepid commitment to environmental protection possible, it was a Republican administration.
And we never had to settle for that. The country wasn' t demanding that Democrats repent for opposing Reaganism.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)RFK would NEVER have advocated just gutting welfare and leaving it at that, with nothing at all to help the poor get work.
RFK NEVER accepted the right-wing lies that the poor refused to try to get work, or that poor women were having kids just to get welfare.
RFK saw problems with welfare(as did the New Left, from the beginning-and if you've read MY posts, you know that I don't defend the status quo of welfare as it was as the ultimate solution)but he knew just getting rid of it and throwing the poor to the wolves(which is what Bill cheerfully signed off on in the Nineties and which is the policy YOU are still defending) was wrong.
RFK never blamed the poor for their own condition. You do, for some reason. You seem to actually believe the "they could always just have worked at WalMart" canard. Why? There's never been any basis in reality for it.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)And straw men opinions at that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Right now, I'm voting for HRC. no one else has shown me they have what it takes to win the generals, and frankly, that is more important than your purity tests.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)I actually call these circle jerk threads. Someone says something way over the top then the Eyore brigade drops by to tell everyone how miserable and joyless we all should be.
Tune in tomorrow for more of the same...
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)So tired of the claptrap tearing down HRC based on nothing. The only hope the right wing has is for the Democratic Party to tear itself apart, as in 1968 and 2000. Her record as Senator and her platform she ran on in 2008 show she will work for the American people.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He couldn't have been re-elected on a "keep the war going" platform.
That wasn't the fault of Johnson's progressive opponents.
We lost in '68 because the American people weren't allowed to have a peace candidate in the fall.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)of the 2016 open seats?
Can nothing progressive happen, then?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Still, she's spent most of her political career in the faction that keeps pushing the party further and further and further to the right.
And she's never repudiated all her work in that effort.
I'm open to accidental positive surprises, I guess.
It's just that I remember the Nineties....and I'm sure that she still thinks of that era as "the good ol' days".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and don't you think it would be highly unlikely that she (if she was President) would veto Democratic progressive legislation?
msongs
(67,404 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Whats wrong with a successful Democratic President?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what were things looking like 6 yrs ago? How soon they forget!
This IS Democratic Underground after all!
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)and we're still not out.
hey, come to where I live. things aren't looking up. they're looking down.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We are digging out of a hole.....a hole thirty years in the making....not to mention with hard opposition to EVERY attempt to dig out of that hole......
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)the continuing skew of wages and income says otherwise; the continuing drop in middle class jobs says otherwise.
no more water; the fire next time
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)a deeper hole. Digging like the "free trade" fetishes and "bipartisanship" with the sworn hole diggers.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)As the President said in one of the debates in 2008 when Hillary was insisting that Reagan was some sort of personal hero to Obama - a stupid rumor most likely started by the Clinton Campsters, He said, look, while you were on the board of Walmart I was out in the streets fighting against what Reagan did to people. But the lie persists, to this day. Nice work, fellow democrat hillary that thought McCain would be a better President than Obama would.
*spits.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)no legislation passed before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of any value at all. After the 1957 bill, everything stayed exactly the same for the next seven years.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... there had been political and legal and social wrestling for 100 years before that. And yea, change DID come incrementally, I'd argue.
Before we can pass anything of worth in the Congress, we actually have to WIN Congress. We can't reverse 30-40 years of GOP gerrymandering and propaganda overnight. Not in my opinion, anyway. This is a generational political struggle. I expect my daughter will still be fighting it long after I'm ashes on the mantle.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)settling for tiny increments, however, seldom helps any struggle along.
There is no "incremental gain" that can possibly matter, for example, in organizing an antiwar movement.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)with some social leftie stuff to cover it up.
God help us if she gets into the WH again.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she OPPOSES Privatizing it....strongly in fact.....you need to reread what that says...
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Jim Dean, the head of Democracy for America—founded by his brother, 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean—said he’s more immediately focused on growing a grassroots army in the states that will solidify public opinion on issues of economic security and enhancing Social Security and Medicare. But he’s also concerned that a Clinton coronation would preempt a clash on how to enhance benefit programs, which he refuses to call “entitlements.” “I am interested in other candidates because we need other candidates to have a debate to push this forward,” Dean said. “We will be pushing the envelope on this. We’re going to press that debate. We’ll fight back against it if she doesn’t.”
Liberals know they face demonstrable hurdles and risks in pressuring the ever-cautious Clinton. Asserting too hostile a position against the possible first woman president could seem premature and even turn off some of their own foot soldiers. So they’re diligently compiling reams of data, organizing events, and corralling like-minded pols to bolster their case. It’s more a soft-power approach than an overt campaign directed at Clinton. “Our goal is create an atmosphere that puts all politicians on notice—including Hillary Clinton,” said Green. (Green’s PCCC has partnered with Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin to push legislation that would expand Social Security benefits, and plans to soon ramp up organizing support for the move in early primary states.)
At the Center for American Progress’ 10th anniversary gala last month, Clinton used the word “progressive” repeatedly in her speech, but—as Hickey noted—steered clear of specifics.
Wasn’t her appearance before the group evidence enough that she’s a blue-blooded progressive?
“I think that’s to be determined,” Green said.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115510/hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-liberals-press-her-entitlements
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)don't fall for the hate...i mean hype!
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)is very disconcerting.
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)I long ago stopped investing in personality cults except for FDR and next tier HST and LBJ - with qualifiers all around. Also, I have had my fill with crying over NOBLE losers. Winning is the only route to incremental progress for our agenda. Even the most mediocre Dem who might not achieve monumentally will nominate judges and thousands of grunt level policy makers who will have immense impact for years to come. Winning is step number one, if she or whatever Dem can do it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Tardis?
Progressive legislation does not rely on the President, it relies on a Congress that passes that legislation. The President can not pass legislation, he or she can only sign it or veto it.
So do you assume that Republicans will remain in control of Congress after 2016. That is in our hands. If Democrats do not elect more and better Democrats to Congress then there will be no progressive legislation. It will not be the President's fault, it will be Democrats who are too lazy or too apathetic to vote. If they don't get out and vote then it is the Democrats who decided that Republicans are giving them what they want.
We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote.
Should Hillary Clinton be elected I do know one real difference between a Clinton Administration and an Obama administration.
Clinton will not go into office thinking Republicans will negotiate fairly or want to govern or desire to do anything for majority of the American People. She recognized the "Vast Right Wing" Conspiracy" and called it such when Bill Clinton was President. I think she will be tougher. I would hope that is true of any Democrat that is elected.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I couldn't say with that much confidence what my wife will do in two years time, and I've known her closely for twenty-five years. Hillary is progressive as hell on a number of issues. She's hawkish on defense. Her overall conception of government and the public-private divide is complicated. She's grown very slowly and steadily more liberal as she's matured. Where she stands now isn't nearly as clear-cut as the OP would have us think.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)has become a plague.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Yet another discussion on welfare reform would be repetitive and tedious with you, Ken. But your revisionism never disappoints.
Edelman first rose to public prominence as a legislative assistant to Bobby Kennedy, and, as the book’s subtitle suggests, Kennedy looms large in the volume. Essentially the book’s message is that Bobby Kennedy was a good Democrat because he would have opposed welfare reform—whereas Bill Clinton is a bad Democrat because he supported it.
Both of Edelman’s judgments are questionable. He acknowledges the existence of a revisionist view of RFK that highlights the latter’s surprising conservatism, but dismisses it, despite the fact that a compelling case can be made that Bobby Kennedy was the original New Democrat, the first to realize that lifelong existence on a dole is demeaning and dehumanizing. In 1966, Kennedy argued that the welfare state had “largely failed as an anti-poverty weapon,” because it had “destroyed family life.” He contended that only through “hard and exacting” work could poor people achieve upward mobility.
It would be rash to assert that Bobby Kennedy would unquestionably have supported welfare reform had he lived. Nevertheless, RFK’s criticisms of welfare certainly resemble those later voiced by proponents of welfare reform.
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/revisionist_history
Bobby Kennedy, You Were No Bobby Kennedy
https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/09/reviews/000109.09wilent.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/106887.stm
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the "hard work" he was referring to was the hard work society would have to do to make the economy inclusive-Bobby wasn't saying the poor were lazy, for God's sakes.
Those who opposed the welfare "reform" bill have never said that people should just stay on welfare, and those on welfare haven't wanted that either.
Nobody was saying "just keep things as they are".
The problem is, the welfare reform bill didn't create jobs for people who were being kicked off of welfare-it just threw them to the wolves. It was based on the classist(and to some degree racist, because Republicans like to pretend that all people on welfare are black-the truth is, most are white and that this has always been the case)notion that people receiving welfare COULD have found wor, anytime they wanted to, but were just lazy...also on the lie that welfare was a gravy train, when in truth it has always largely been a near-useless pittance.
The way to get people off of welfare is to create jobs, through public works programs rebuilding impoverished areas so that the people who actually live in them would actually get a chance to get real work and real jobs skills making their neighborhoods better-NOT on doing what was actually done and saying, in effect "just go roam the country looking for jobs that pay you crumbs."
And the other thing would have been either to create a real healthcare program in this country(most people on welfare only stayed on it because they'd lose any chance of healthcare coverage for their kids if they didn't)or, at least, let people keep the health coverage they had on welfare for the first couple of years of employment.
And the great irony is, the kind of jobs YOU probably think of as what people on welfare should be doing...fast food jobs...often pay so little that people who take them on are still eligible for benefits.
So, no, Bobby Kennedy would NOT be down with what was done in 1996, because Bobby NEVER believed that people on the dole should be punished just for having taken benefits. Bobby never judged the poor morally, because he recognized that, as a person of privilege, he had no right to. It would be nice if, as a person of at least some privilege, you'd do the same.
You get people off of benefits by creating REAL jobs and real, viable economies in the neighborhoods where they live...not by telling them to work at McDonald's or WalMart.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... ahead of the full-blown Workforce development bill in '98. Work force development is an American economic development approach that attempts to enhance a region's economic stability and prosperity by focusing on people rather than businesses. It is essentially a human resources strategy.
This was a continuation of a JFK idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_Investment_Act_of_1998
Similarly, Bobby Kennedy argued that increased government cooperation with private enterprise would reduce housing and employment woes in the United States.
http://www.4president.org/brochures/rfk1968brochure.htm
He sought to remedy the problems of poverty through legislation to encourage private industry to locate in poverty-stricken areas, thus creating jobs for the unemployed, and stressed the importance of work over welfare.
http://rfkcenter.org/robert-f-kennedy
THAT was your RFK jobs program.
Your entire diatribe is completely void of facts and peppered with more your famous soothsaying.
Rosco T.
(6,496 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)for not delivering on a single payer promise he never made while running for President, we have yet another skewering the only potential candidate who actually sought to implement single payer.
The arrogance involved in thinking you can predict the future candidate for elections that have not yet happened is stupefying. I don't know who is going to run much less who is going to win, but I can tell you with absolutely certainty the last place I will look for insight into the candidates is here. You people have been carrying on the same inane fantasy presidential election games for years and watched the Senate go to the GOP in the process, with barely a notice save a celebration thread or two for the defeat of Mary Landrieu.
The idea that a president can transform a society is an absurdity. You all are fantasizing about Warren as you did about Obama, and know just as little about her as you did him. If by some miracle you get your wish and she is elected, in a couple of years time you'll be complaining about how she is a sell out because she didn't deliver what she never promised. A president is not Santa Claus and it isn't mommy or daddy. It is a limited constitutional position that has to work with congress, a congress some here helped turn GOP by telling everyone not voting was some act of political protest. Sure it is. It's a protest that benefits the GOP, the party that won.
I don't know how it is possible to have such little awareness of the country or political system one lives under. I don't know how one let alone a group of people can imagine the power to unmake the political elite (which is what fucking electoral politics is) and corporate capitalism lies in a presidential candidate. You live in a capitalist state, in a country built around capitalism, and have fantasies that a president is going to unmake the very nature of the state he or she serves? No wonder you all spend so much time complaining. You haven't even figured out what country you live in. Or perhaps you all don't really have an issue with capitalism at all. Perhaps the reason you never before figured out that the American political system serves capital is because many of you are privileged enough that until recently you were on the winning side of that class struggle, and what you're really pissed off about is not inherent inequality in the system but that your own position has slipped a bit to where you are a bit closer to being like the rest of us.
There have been changes under the current president, an end to don't ask don't tell, a rapid growth in marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, vigorous defense of the voting rights act, enforcement of Title IX on college campuses to help keep women somewhat safer from sexual assault; national health care, and an opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba. People here have called that crumbs. They don't care because it's not about them.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
ecstatic
(32,701 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... when derivatives were deregulated and more dark money was allowed in our elections.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)In response to my question about what you did to put single payer on the table, you posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6110656
Then you again refused to respond to the point that he in fact never proposed single payer during the 2008 election. The entire debate during the 2008 primary was about the mandate. You appear to have paid no attention to the election and then held him and the rest of the Democrats responsible for promises they never made. You admittedly did nothing, and now complain that they didn't fulfill your wishes seven years after the fact. It is truly mind boggling.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)... being like the rest of us." Is subconsciously what drives this disdain for those of us interested in social justice issues?
Sometimes it seems that way.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Who actually think ordinary Americans matter? And it's just like totally coincidental a number of them are hostile to many of those issues, particularly when they see them as infringing on white male privilege. A real leftist doesn't actually take positions that benefit workers and the subaltern. No, they simply use the term "left" thirty times a day while showing their sole concern is contests among political elites in Washington 
Well, actually a single contest and defeating a single Democratic politician. That would be one of many reasons why I refuse to cede the designation of leftist to them. That and their positions on issues.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying is that a Democratic president is supposed to stand up to capital with just as much passion as Republicans blindly serve it.
We are supposed to be different than them on everything.
We are supposed to represent everyone who is left out in the cold by the existing order...we are never supposed to endorse the exclusion and agree to continue it.
And, especially, we are never supposed to barter our party's soul by taking massive corporate donations.
Every time we do that, we lose more and more of ourselves.
This left us, at the worst moment, in the dead zone of the Nineties, where our Democratic president agreed with the Republicans on everything other than choice and environmentalism. He was just as brutal to the poor as the Right were...he was just as contemptuous of labor as they were.
And we are now being asked to endorse a candidate whose nomination implicitly commits the party to going back to that era...and also reduces us to the disgusting spector of alternating ruling families, a kind of politics in which ordinary Americans have no hope at all.
Obviously, a president can't by her or himself transform the country. But she or he can, at least, make it clear that she or he will NEVER stand in the way of transformation from below. Do you honestly believe that this candidate will ever do that, being committed, as she is, to the notion that political decisions should be made solely by elitist "insiders"?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Since when? When did the Democratic Party ever oppose capital?
That is the nature of the cleptocracy that has developed over the past couple of decades. That is not the fault of Hillary Clinton nor would her candidacy or election affect it.
If you want to change the role of money in politics, the only current solution is a constitutional amendment. No political messiah is going to rewrite the constitution (or SCOTUS's fucked up interpretation of it) without the approval of SCOTUS, congress, and state legislatures. I personally think that is the single issue that most impedes our democracy--money, not just from corporations but generally. That is an issue that I would like to see organization around. Opposing Hillary Clinton is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to that issue.
No one (save some other DUers doing their own fantasy presidential politics game) has asked you to endorse Clinton. Clinton hasn't asked you to endorse her. She has not even declared as a candidate. You have been running your fantasy presidential election for years now. You and her enemies are the ones working so hard to make her inevitable. YOU. (I have often wondered what would happen if she doesn't run. A number of people here have talked about nothing else for several years now. If she doesn't run, I wonder what would that mean for you people who have defined yourselves entirely around your opposition to her. I think some people would feel very empty without the single thing that has defined them for several years now. She's only a politician for God's sake.)
Her crime, it seems is being married to Bill Clinton. Nothing you have listed has anything to do with her personally. It is endemic to the system, some of it to the nature of the capitalist state and some of it to the current campaign finance nightmare SCOTUS has imposed. Your association of Secretary Clinton is not an argument. It is an assumption based on the fact you refuse to see her as an independent human being. Whatever. I don't give a flying shit who you support for president. I would like to wait until there is an actual campaign and we can see who the actual nominees are. I will tell you one thing. It's going to be very difficult for me to resist supporting her after hearing all this illogical moaning for years on end.
What we have here is your deciding Clinton embodies everything you despise about the current American political system and the Democratic party. That has to do with you and your own issues and is not a logical position. Nothing you have mentioned will go away with another candidate. NOT ONE THING. You could pick your dream president right now and in a few years you would be making the exact same complaints. There are no political messiahs. No President is going to save America. Our political system does not vest that much power in the presidency. If you want to do something about money in politics, you need to quit your fixation on the presidency and work for a constitutional amendment. Absent that, ain't a fucking thing going to change about the role of money in politics.
Lastly
Obviously, a president can't by her or himself transform the country. But she or he can, at least, make it clear that she or he will NEVER stand in the way of transformation from below. Do you honestly believe that this candidate will ever do that, being committed, as she is, to the notion that political decisions should be made solely by elitist "insiders"?
The irony in this statement is mind boggling. You talk about a race for President and then bemoan "elitest insiders" in the same breath. The Presidency, the most elite of offices, the elite of elite. And it is now an office that costs a billion or more dollars to acquire, and you think someone besides elitist insiders is going to have a shot? I get the feeling you actually believed the mythology you were taught in grade school about government of the people by the people. I'll clue you in. It's a lie. It's always been a lie. It's national mythology, meant to inculcate loyalty to the state and capitalism. You need to give up this school boy fantasy of American government. The founders worked diligently to separate government from the people. They never wanted a government that would represent ordinary people. They were all wealthy landed elites. That is how our nation was born, and it is how it has always been. Now it's gone way out of kilter with big money, so much so that people like folks on this site have finally started to notice that reality doesn't quite add up to the myth, only you think it's a temporary condition rather than endemic to the system. Both parties serve capital. The differences have started to become greater because the GOP has gone full fledged bat shit. Even then, sections of the Tea Party are quite hostile to big money, so the divide isn't what you imagine. That there is any difference on these issues is a product of the late 20th century. Some of that alignment came in the 30s when the Democrats emerged as the party that garnered most labor support. Then in the 60s, African Americans moved to support the Democratic Party. Now they also have the support of most women and LGBT. But at no point did they set themselves up as a party that opposed moneyed interests. That is not possible under our political system, nor is it how the framers intended the system to function. You seem to forget the Democratic Party was once the party of slaveholders. Politicians typically represent the financial interests from their regions. They couldn't survive if they didn't. Every single MN Democratic is lobbying to get the medical device tax removed from Obamacare, including Keith Ellison, chair of the Progressive caucus. Why? Because it's crucial to the MN economy. He'd have to be insane to cross them. That is why Biden always voted in the interests of credit card companies and why midwestern pols always vote for agribusiness. They can't survive if they don't. That much has been true since the continental congress was elected, largely because the representatives were the financial elite.
Not a single thing you have mentioned has to do with Hillary Clinton. Not one. I encourage you to think about what you have visited onto Clinton (the female body) everything that you dislike about the American political system. Another candidate won't change a single concern you raised. Not a one. America will still be America, and SCOTUS will sill be working to make the cash nexus more naked than ever. There are things the American people can do to make it better, but that requires actual organization, mobilization and hard work. A President will not and cannot solve it.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Expecting that to change any time soon is fantasy. At best, reforms that emanate from the President and/or from Congress are piecemeal and incremental, designed to head off social unrest and dramatic change rather than promote it.
And it's always been that way.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There's a first time for everything.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)and Hillary is NO JEB
ecstatic
(32,701 posts)That's if you even have any *democratic* suggestions.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)after the brutal attack we have endured on our reproductive freedom over the last ten years. I totally expect some bold moves from her on that and to do what she can to give Lilly Ledbetter teeth.
I guess I should stop being shocked by the glaring omission of life and death concerns that effect a majority of the party, but still.....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not like all the other possible candidates are pro-lifers.
And choice isn't the ONLY life or death issue.
Challenging corporate domination of politics and the economy is a life and death issue.
Restoring the strength of the labor movement is a life and death issue.
The fight against things like TPP and other "free" trade pacts is a life and death issue.
Fighting against global warming is alife and death issue.
Fighting against global austerity is a kfe and death issue.
Opposition to continued military intervention in the Middle East is a life and death issue.
And all of those affect women just as much as the question of abortion rights and access to contraception.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)days, and forcing them into lives they do not want by removing choice. Not sure why it was completely ignored in your OP, because if it was happening to men, you'd be screaming bloody murder. You all scream about the NSA and forget women are currently subject to the most extreme intrusions on their body by the government.
The current impact is huge, and so many losing such liberty really does not compare what is happening to our pocketbooks.
Combine that and what is happening to us in the workplace- a candidate truly committed to women's issues (whoever that might be) will likely have much more significant impact on our lives than one who is not. Not going to apologize for putting women top of the list- when you and countless other Dems made their lists- we do not even rate a mention. Time to change that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it isn't more important than what I did list...it's not worth being non-progressive on everything else(as the party was in the Nineties).
No disrespect to the need to preserve choice as a cause was intended.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It has nothing to do with Citizens United.
It is hard to believe that Hillary would appoint Supreme Court Justices any different than Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, or Kagan.
The real issue, for both Obama and Clinton, is the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans gerrymandered the House to an insane degree, like nothing we have ever before seen in American history. It is a definite limit on our democracy,
mythology
(9,527 posts)and then convince me why to support that person. Don't tell me all the bad things you think about Hillary Clinton.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)WE GET IT ALREADY
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)not excited
bland on a stick
induced coma
Skittles
(153,160 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't wish the woman ill on a human level. In fact, I'd like to see her on the Supreme Court-which would be better, since she'd have THAT job for life.
I just don't want her having the chance to start more wars and sign more corporate trade deals. And war and trade deals are pretty much all a HRC presidency would ever be. There's be nothing to celebrate and no real feminism, since feminism and war don't go together(war being an intrinsically sexist and racist institution which can never have any liberating results again).
Skittles
(153,160 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)eom.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just pointing out that no one should have any hopes beyond maintaining the status quo.
Is that such a terrible thing to say?
All HRC can do is keep things from going as far to the right as they would under Jeb.
She will never fight for actual gains.
Militarists don't do that.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)right now I would be happy to discuss this. Lets take a rain check for now. I will come back with my thoughts a little later.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)and is shaded by our own ideas. I think your statements regarding Hillary are a bit absurd, BUT, thats just my opinion based on my expectations and ideas. Do you also claim that nothing progressive happened under the Obama admin?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Less happened than a lot of us thought, and(more importantly) it seemed like the administration ceded control of the debate to its opponents on the Right from the get-go.
I'd have gone in far less optimistic if Obama had been in the Clinton cabinet.
And, for the record, I'd be happy to be proven wrong by future events(as, for example, a lot of civil rights activists were by JFK in the later months of his presidency(most expected little from the Kennedy administration in the spring of '61).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What might be more productive is to promote the positive reasons why we ought to support whoever it is you think would be a good choice.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even nastier than the last time she ran for the nomination I would imagine.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)or any other Third Way corporatist in a Democrat suit from being shoved down our throats as the Democratic nominee in 2016. No accepting "inevitability" or fast-forwarding to that outcome, because that is the outcome we need to prevent.
That's the corporate goal, because if corporatists succeed in doing that, they have ensured the continuation of their predatory corporate agenda no matter who is elected.
Corporate Republicans and the corporate Third Way are not just another flavor of politician within an essentially functioning representative government. They are building perpetual war, a police and surveillance state, and using our own laws and intelligence agencies to empower corporations over the will of the American people to dismantle democracy itself.
Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761
Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank
How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647
Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441
On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar
Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29
The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257
Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136
Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279
Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343
Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285
How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611
Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071
Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575
Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986
Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)The interactive graphic link is broken at the forbes site.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The first time you visit the link, you get a "Welcome to Forbes" page. When you refresh the page, you get the article and interactive graphic.
Strange.
Thanks for the heads up. I hope loading it twice works for others, because it's important, disturbing information: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/10/30/one-degree-of-hillary-how-clinton-is-connected-to-the-worlds-most-powerful/
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Thank you for posting and all that you do. It is invaluable to some of us.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)and we all agreed she work for absolutely alllllll of us*
*in the 1%
benz380
(534 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Black and white simpleton thinking. Conservatives aren't the only ones guilty. CDS is strong here. As is the whole concept of the low information voter.
Isn't poppy shrubs nominee on the supreme court the most vocal against Citizens United. According to your own concerns, a new Bush might be just right. Seriously, Citizens United. CDS big time.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)In light of how ZERO of her endorsed candidates won this last time, and how poorly (more generally) Third Way Democratic politics has performed in terms of getting our voters to the polls.
But it doesn't make a difference what you or I think; she's pretty much got it locked up, IMO.
And yes, folks, I realize any Democrat is better than even the least Republican Republican.
jpak
(41,757 posts)
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)anti progressive?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why. might I ask, do you think HRC would be progressive on anything?
She might be forced to sign a handful of things, but, really, why think her administration wouldn't be exactly like Bill's? It's not like she's shown any signs of intellectual or moral growth since her days as a DLC left-basher.
Why shouldn't we see her as lesser-evil and nothing else?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The next president will replace Justice Ginsburg.
Full stop.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And Bernie was talking about after the convention...NOT in the primaries.
There's no way that Bernie thinks HRC actually cares about the things he fights for. Why would he think that?
Hekate
(90,674 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)HRC is a Wall Street Dem and EAW is a Main Street Dem & she's trying to fight Wall Street corruption, not endorse it.
Its just so laughable.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)So is she your candidate in 2016?
WARREN: You know, all of the women -- Democratic women, I should say, of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run. And I hope she does.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You hope she does. And if she does, she is your candidate, you're going to endorse her?
WARREN: If Hillary -- Hillary is terrific.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you've said she is terrific very many times. You say that again in this book, "A Fighting Chance." But this book leaves out something of a pointed criticism from your earlier book, "The Two Income Trap."
There you praised first lady Hillary Clinton for her opposition to this bankruptcy bill pushed by the big banks, but go on to talk about how she, as New York senator, seemed she could not afford that principled position.
Senator Clinton received 140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton's constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers, including a vote in favor of that awful bill.
So do you think that -- are you worried that somehow she will bow to big business, those were your words in that book, if she becomes president?
WARREN: Look, I've made it clear all the way through this book and really what I've been working on for the last 25 years, that I'm worried a lot about power in the financial services industry.
And I'm worried about the fact that basically starting in the '80s, you know, the cops were taken off the beat in financial services, these guys were allowed to just paint a bull's eye on the backsides of American families.
They loaded up on risk. They crashed the economy. They got bailed out. And what bothers me now is they still strut around Washington. They block regulations that they don't want. They roll over agencies whenever they can. And they break...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did they rollover Hillary Clinton?
WARREN: Well, that's -- they break the law, and still don't end up being held accountable for it, and going to jail.
One of the things that I focus on really hard throughout this book is that that is one of the prime examples of how the playing field is tilted and how we've got to push back against it.
It's a central issue for me. It's something I'm going to keep talking about. And I'm going to keep talking about it with everyone.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right. But -- I understand. Do you think Hillary Clinton will push back on that as well?
WARREN: Well, I'm going to keep talking about this issue. And I'm going to keep pushing on this issue.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/abcs-stephanopoulos-makes-elizabeth-warren
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)But totally unjustified IMHO. Also, if we want some good progressive legislation for her to sign if POTUS, we need to fight for a more progressive Congress. I don't know about you but I want HRC, not a Republican selecting the next SCOTUS judge(s)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC would be ok choosing the next Justice(though she'd never choose a William O. Douglass or a Thurgood Marshall).
I also doubt, based on the Nineties, that if nominated she'd fight hard in the fall to elect a Dem Congress. She and Bill never tried to get Newt's mob out back in the day...seemed to prefer them having the majority after '94, as I recall it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)1/15/15
Americans for Prosperity, the free-market advocacy group created by Republican energy executives Charles and David Koch, is looking backward to the Clinton era for inspiration.
At a press conference Thursday, AFP President Tim Phillips couldn't stop talking about the great things that happened during Clinton's eight years in office, when the Democratic president worked with the Republican Congress "to accomplish a lot for the country on the economic freedom front." The dynamic duo passed NAFTA to foster trade among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. They also balanced the budget and reformed welfare.
"It made a difference for the nation," Phillips said. "We were healthier economically because of that cooperation across the lines."...
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-15/koch-group-nostalgic-for-clinton-era
benz380
(534 posts)
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)