Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:57 PM Mar 2015

I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

Period. End of file.

Wrong on the Patriot Act.

Wrong on the Iraq war and the AUMF.

Wrong on the Keystone XL and fracking.

Wrong on Wall Street across the board.

= wrong on personal freedom, unjust war, climate change, and economic justice.

I've been a Democrat since 9:00am of my 18th birthday. I've worked on Democratic campaigns high and low. No one, but no one, can challenge my creds on the matter of party loyalty.

Wrong is wrong. This is a bad idea we will come to regret.

Go ahead and launch the personal attacks. That has come to be expected. The first Clinton supporter who can actually explain how they can live with her record earns my respect, if not my agreement.

...oh, and P.S., O MY GOD REPUBLICANS ARE SO BAD YOU GUYS does not count. She voted like a Republican on the Patriot Act and the war, acted fully like a Republican on Keystone, and is as Republican as you can get regarding Wall Street. That O MY GOD REPUBLICANS garbage doesn't fly anymore. She forfeited that privilege when she sided - again and again and again and again - with the worst people in the country

So explain it to me. Explain how we can't do better if we actually try. I'm a Democrat in good standing. I'll wait.

495 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. (Original Post) WilliamPitt Mar 2015 OP
First K&R Electric Monk Mar 2015 #1
I don't want her either. bravenak Mar 2015 #2
She's A Member Of The Bush Family billhicks76 Mar 2015 #18
Yep. Relics of the past. bravenak Mar 2015 #54
Remember "the bridge to the 21st century"? Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #183
I swear! bravenak Mar 2015 #184
OK, So let us have a more Right wing Supreme Court for the next 20 years QuestionAlways Mar 2015 #202
The supreme court is the ONLY reason I vote in the Presidential from now on. bravenak Mar 2015 #203
What makes you think that a president with so many right wing pipoman Mar 2015 #298
History sellitman Apr 2015 #493
This message was self-deleted by its author CrispyQ Mar 2015 #329
And if she loses, that's exactly what we're going to get. Let's have Dem Candidate that sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #382
If she wins marym625 Mar 2015 #383
actually Pharaoh Mar 2015 #210
Welfare refrom hit the poorest women. bravenak Mar 2015 #213
yes Pharaoh Mar 2015 #217
I know. bravenak Mar 2015 #220
I Know. Pharaoh Mar 2015 #224
Yep! bravenak Mar 2015 #228
Don't forget that the unreal marym625 Mar 2015 #393
Yep. I remember the paper princess economy. bravenak Mar 2015 #397
Let's just hope they're actually paying attention marym625 Mar 2015 #399
Yeah. I think you may be right. bravenak Mar 2015 #400
My friend DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #314
The child poverty rate among single parent housholds is extremly high NOW. bravenak Mar 2015 #348
IMHO, it's higher now because a weak economy is going to hurt those most in need first. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #349
Especially when the social safety net has already been cut during 'good times'. bravenak Mar 2015 #352
'Welfare Reform' hit the poorest, single moms and their children BEFORE the economy sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #379
What year was that, 1996, when welfare became workfare? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #421
I'm not sure of the exact year, but Clinton signed into law. And airc, he knew how unpopular it was sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #424
August 22, 1996. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #426
Someone here claimed Bubba had actually campaigned on welfare "reform." And, as I keep saying, merrily Mar 2015 #484
and if you knew anything about the '92 campaign, you'd know he did. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #487
My post did not dispute the other poster's claim and it was irrelevant to point of my post anyway. merrily Mar 2015 #488
You said someone 'claimed' it. No, someone stated it, because it is a fact wyldwolf Mar 2015 #489
I already responded to your first point and your second is "merely wrong." merrily Mar 2015 #492
Not One Peep About 911 billhicks76 Mar 2015 #398
You Sound like the GOP, Hillary, had been a Democrat over 30 years. lewebley3 Mar 2015 #360
interesting marym625 Mar 2015 #396
Not only that, Obama is not a good American? fadedrose Mar 2015 #443
What? marym625 Mar 2015 #464
What (explained) fadedrose Mar 2015 #474
...... merrily Mar 2015 #123
me neither/nor president /nt AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #3
What do you think about Joe Biden? awake Mar 2015 #4
I could never vote for Biden ghostsinthemachine Mar 2015 #7
No More Drug Warriors billhicks76 Mar 2015 #20
Ding a ling ghostsinthemachine Mar 2015 #38
That's my issue with Biden, as well. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #231
His work for his Delaware corporations on the bankrtuptcy bill he championed is also a problem... cascadiance Mar 2015 #241
He is not running and he Ran twice and Lost, GO Hillary!! lewebley3 Mar 2015 #370
I had heard that he was in Iowa a short while back awake Mar 2015 #374
In other news... Cooley Hurd Mar 2015 #5
Me neither ghostsinthemachine Mar 2015 #6
I agree with you oregonjen Mar 2015 #8
Will she run? still_one Mar 2015 #10
No brooklynite Mar 2015 #113
Martin O'Malley. n/t Aerows Mar 2015 #118
He's awesome. mahina Mar 2015 #158
You can stop pretending. merrily Mar 2015 #125
So, three voices constitute the Democratic Party now... brooklynite Mar 2015 #163
Sure, Gov Brown, Schumer, Van De Huevel, Frank all saying the same thing is pure coincidence. merrily Mar 2015 #170
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that "the Party" is opposed to a Primary... brooklynite Mar 2015 #174
You must really enjoy the rolleyes emoticon or you'd post something that makes some kind of sense. merrily Mar 2015 #179
Fine, so will you vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is? still_one Mar 2015 #9
whoosh. cali Mar 2015 #11
Here in New Hampshire WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #12
I knew that, and I understand where you are coming from still_one Mar 2015 #70
That's good enough for me. Adrahil Mar 2015 #225
Good enough for me, too. aquart Mar 2015 #427
Who cares? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #58
Maybe. On the other hand it may be a push for a competitive primary still_one Mar 2015 #74
Nobody is preventing anybody from running./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #76
I know still_one Mar 2015 #161
And if Clinton's fans were correct we'd have Presidents Gore and Kerry (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #105
I supported the anti-war general in the 04 primaries. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #142
As usual with you, you're changing the subject. jeff47 Mar 2015 #362
I didn't claim anybody was morons.... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #367
And now we move on to the pedantic phase jeff47 Mar 2015 #391
The Clintons are 10-2 in general elections against the Republicans. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #392
Gore won more votes than any Dem in history. Kerry then beat that record wyldwolf Mar 2015 #411
And then Obama broke those records jeff47 Mar 2015 #434
Even though he's third way and said as much before the campaign and after wyldwolf Mar 2015 #436
He's governed following third way. jeff47 Mar 2015 #440
He wrote the most eloquently written Third Way manifesto ever. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #441
Yeah, that's why the Third way candidate crushed him in the primary. jeff47 Mar 2015 #444
Identity politics wyldwolf Mar 2015 #446
While I agree with much you have written ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #452
Here's an interesting piece comparing Sen. Warren's chances vs. Sen. Obama's results wyldwolf Mar 2015 #453
Thanks. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #457
Why is that important? rhett o rick Mar 2015 #104
So it can be used as a cudgel later. jeff47 Mar 2015 #108
The arrogance of "Clinton will be President, shut up" Aerows Mar 2015 #115
Great post. TDale313 Mar 2015 #198
Thanks. Aerows Mar 2015 #214
It's not only Hillary, though. The Party thinks she's entitled to be President with no primary to merrily Mar 2015 #200
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #483
interesting comment here ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #325
Clinton. jeff47 Mar 2015 #357
So IOWs ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #381
As long as you think she's no one. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #389
Sen. Schumer, Gov. Brown, former Rep Barney Frank, long time Democratic merrily Mar 2015 #485
Are the Democratic Party leaders that you name ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #486
Well said. HappyMe Mar 2015 #439
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #482
"you're harming our nominee by making it appear the party is fractured." LOL. The Democratic rhett o rick Mar 2015 #146
Democrats used to pride themselves on NOT being Stepford lockstep, which was the right's schtick. merrily Mar 2015 #199
You said it well. I completely agree. Conservatives are conservatives even if they call rhett o rick Mar 2015 #207
Can't speak for Cali, but I can speak for Aerows Aerows Mar 2015 #109
+1 Veilex Mar 2015 #155
+2 L0oniX Mar 2015 #302
+1 more. n/t :) Chan790 Mar 2015 #368
Perhaps you mean anointee. merrily Mar 2015 #128
No no no ...silly. It's "demigod". L0oniX Mar 2015 #304
Oh so right. Period. End of file. Autumn Mar 2015 #13
And your other choices will be???? merrily Mar 2015 #129
Kick and Rec for TRUTH! nt hifiguy Mar 2015 #14
I agree with you. Sienna86 Mar 2015 #15
Agree, Will, but what are the alternatives? Expecially if Warren, Sanders and O'Malley don't run KoKo Mar 2015 #16
I can bet you O'Malley will run Aerows Mar 2015 #23
So will I. 840high Mar 2015 #68
If he does run, it will be only as a stalking horse for Hillary and maybe as a candidate next time. merrily Mar 2015 #131
Excuse me Aerows Mar 2015 #137
Huh? I cited quotes from Rep. Frank (video), Gov. Brown, Sen. Schumer (Daily Kos), Katrina merrily Mar 2015 #141
I saw Newsmax Aerows Mar 2015 #150
I saw Brown say it on video. My links are to the effect that the party thinks primaries are bad. merrily Mar 2015 #151
Didn't mean to accuse you of such. Aerows Mar 2015 #160
Apology not needed, but accepted. If she were really the only one who could win, they would welcome merrily Mar 2015 #211
There is someone worse than Newsmax? Dang, they must be really really bad. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #338
Maybe this? Marr Mar 2015 #185
Thank you. I saw Brown in a video saying this or something similar. merrily Mar 2015 #197
Thanks for that link red dog 1 Mar 2015 #401
I may write in ann--- Mar 2015 #29
Oh, Here...Could Chris Van Hollen be a "Dark Horse Candidate" KoKo Mar 2015 #30
...... merrily Mar 2015 #143
I appreciate your points, and you are probably four years too late. oldandhappy Mar 2015 #17
As E. Warren keeps saying, the system is rigged. merrily Mar 2015 #132
Cuz there's not a dimes worth of difference between al gore and George bush. greenman3610 Mar 2015 #19
Your point? Gore won, bush stole it. Remember? morningfog Mar 2015 #24
That is a general election argument not a pre-primary argument. Besides, Gore won. merrily Mar 2015 #136
Anyone who still pushes this stale talking point is not worth reading. [n/t] Maedhros Mar 2015 #355
I'm a Democrat in good standing. I'll wait. MyNameGoesHere Mar 2015 #21
I was a Democrat in the womb and I echo your sentiments in toto/NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #39
I don't want her either Aerows Mar 2015 #22
Any D but Hillary. morningfog Mar 2015 #25
Andrew Cuomo? (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #28
NO GOD NO !!!! pangaia Mar 2015 #96
Cuomo is an opportunistic weasel sellout scumbag. tomp Mar 2015 #318
Right you are. pangaia Mar 2015 #321
me too! tomp Mar 2015 #323
+1 Enthusiast Mar 2015 #339
Wrong kind of "d" Fearless Mar 2015 #187
Me, neither ann--- Mar 2015 #26
A-fucking-men android fan Mar 2015 #27
If Bernie runs, I'll quit my job and go door to door for him! emsimon33 Mar 2015 #259
Nor do I. But if she is, I will vote for her. I hope ... 11 Bravo Mar 2015 #31
I will make it simple for you kratos00 Mar 2015 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #81
The politics of fear. Maedhros Mar 2015 #356
How can someone be so hated, despised and reviled... yallerdawg Mar 2015 #33
The Teapartiers hate her... Whiskeytide Mar 2015 #52
Nope. She's in the club. hifiguy Mar 2015 #111
They hate anyone who isn't in their little cult. [nt] Jester Messiah Mar 2015 #85
Because she can win WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #91
She can beat any other Republican in the race (Clown) car. Can she beat a Progressive Populist Vincardog Mar 2015 #124
Fascinating reply. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #209
They have no idea why they do not like her. pangaia Mar 2015 #100
They hate Joe Manchin too. Chan790 Mar 2015 #373
Which Democrat is actually running that you could support? Jim Webb? n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #34
Nobody is running yet. Aerows Mar 2015 #167
Who, besides Hillary and Jim, has a campaign organization ready, or even started? n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #171
Martin O'Malley. n/t Aerows Mar 2015 #173
So are you supporting him for President? n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #176
Did you miss my sig? n/t Aerows Mar 2015 #178
. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #282
You know good and well he is not voting for a democratic nominee. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #283
Not sure which "he" you are referring to Aerows Mar 2015 #371
finally a candidate willspitt can get behind. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #429
I see your "Space Reserved for O'Malley" thingy ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #454
Anyone got a link for where Hillary supported Keystone? Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #35
She fully supports fracking. She refuses to answer on Keystone, tho the Clinton foundation peacebird Mar 2015 #43
The Clintons have feathered their nest very nicely hifiguy Mar 2015 #50
True. We need a better candidate peacebird Mar 2015 #55
Links? Proof? Your say-so is not enough when you make claims like that. nt MADem Mar 2015 #248
here you go AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #65
Ummmm.... that's Bill (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #67
keep reading .... AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #69
Sorry, I still don't see where she endorsed Keystone (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #75
Keystone lobbyist gave $500,000 to Clinton Foundation. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #77
So when someone makes a donation to a charity Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #101
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #106
I'm pretty sure that if Hillary had ever endorsed Keystone someone would have posted a link by now. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #110
"if Hillary had ever endorsed Keystone" - Of course she endorced it... she oversaw the permit. Veilex Mar 2015 #162
In other words, she hasn't endorsed it. DanTex Mar 2015 #196
But she was "inclined to approve it" RiverLover Mar 2015 #295
+1 Veilex Mar 2015 #345
When it comes to politics, donations purchase a piece of that candidate. Chemisse Mar 2015 #212
You haven't made the connection. MADem Mar 2015 #249
FFS she hired a Keystone-connected company to do AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #251
Links? Where did Obama say "I'm taking this out of your hands because I don't like MADem Mar 2015 #253
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #254
Did you even read that? It doesn't say what you're claiming, at all. MADem Mar 2015 #255
I admire your reserve after your interlocutor advised you to perform a unnatural act on yourself. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #263
Eh...by their words we shall know them, I always say. MADem Mar 2015 #264
I don't want any hides so I try to censor myself the best I can. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #265
I have decided that I'm not going to let that kind of stuff bother me. MADem Mar 2015 #316
Where is your candidate? If I did not want Hillary I would present an alternate candidate and Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #36
Thats fine and I will not insult you. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #37
I love you hrmjustin Aerows Mar 2015 #133
I love you too Aerows! hrmjustin Mar 2015 #145
Me either. I am retiring end of May and plan to donate time to Anybody But HRC.... peacebird Mar 2015 #40
Nothing wrong with that, some here do like the idea of options. Rex Mar 2015 #41
But would you buy a used car from her? riqster Mar 2015 #42
They always asked that question about Nixon. hifiguy Mar 2015 #60
yes, but... druidity33 Mar 2015 #299
Get the Carfax! riqster Mar 2015 #343
I “live with her record” easily, because when you actually look at her record, it is a strong liberal one. NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #44
thanks I will keep this and send to all I know riversedge Mar 2015 #46
Thank you NYC Liberal for some facts. sheshe2 Mar 2015 #72
NYC Liberal wins the thread WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #95
"Fought against electric rate cut" "Yes: criminalize flag burning" "Yes to wiretapping" NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #229
Don't you remember the discussion about the flag burning business here on DU? MADem Mar 2015 #234
"onetheissues" is the source, and we are entering the primaries. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #235
You know, I brought OTI to this board, years ago...but my point is that the flag burning gripe is a MADem Mar 2015 #238
I'm sure you're right about the flag thing, I didn't follow it. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #239
The context obviates the "accusation" that Clinton was somehow in the "Waaah!! No Flag Burning!!!" MADem Mar 2015 #245
Well said document!!!!! Alot of work went into this. Going onecent Mar 2015 #117
Nice info but many years ago. I don't hear her say anything good concerning the glinda Mar 2015 #138
Good job! JaneyVee Mar 2015 #165
Thank you for this fantastic post. blue neen Mar 2015 #175
Thank you so much for posting and consider making this its own op. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #205
I think this older more traditional graph is more accurate and relevant cascadiance Mar 2015 #243
Great--a Republican who is good on social issues. I want more than that from a Democrat eridani Mar 2015 #289
The ugly truth. But there it is. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #342
WOW! - JUST WOW! asiliveandbreathe Mar 2015 #305
Good to know! smirkymonkey Mar 2015 #335
That Votematch graph distorts her record Fiendish Thingy Mar 2015 #340
Those graphs are worthless when used that way. Marr Mar 2015 #351
Thank you NYC Liberal. lovemydog Mar 2015 #394
And I hear she uses Tuirbo Tax to file her taxes...nt SidDithers Mar 2015 #45
Bravo! Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #53
You're mean... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #59
We are on the same sheet of music. Savannahmann Mar 2015 #47
Wyden is my Senator, I wrote to tell him that if he fast tracks the TPP I'll support a primary Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #448
The reason nobody is mentioning Biden, or Dodd, or anyone else is the context. Savannahmann Mar 2015 #450
I don't want anyone to be the Democratic nominee. NBachers Mar 2015 #48
me neither moonbeam23 Mar 2015 #66
" She voted like a Republican on the Patriot Act and the war..." DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #49
Yes - clearly the entire Democratic Senate contingent is way off target. Maedhros Mar 2015 #359
I can't remember any time I voted holding my nose and my candidate won starroute Mar 2015 #51
+1 Dems to Win Mar 2015 #262
I've been a hard core Democrat as long as you, and I disagree. Sancho Mar 2015 #56
What was Nixon like in person? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #63
More personable than on TV to me. Sancho Mar 2015 #78
TY. Neat experience for you./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #79
It caused a family crisis, but I was all in for Carter Sancho Mar 2015 #89
The most abhorrent politician I've ever come across was "charismatic" in person. delrem Mar 2015 #252
I have met several politicians in my life... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #261
So, how do you suppose that Hillary can court "the left"? delrem Mar 2015 #267
It's 2:00 A M here so my thought process is slowed. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #268
Ah. You say Hillary doesn't even have to work at it. She's got it in the bag. delrem Mar 2015 #271
No guarantees in life but death , taxes and Adam Sandler making cheesy movies. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #272
Are you a robot? delrem Mar 2015 #273
I thought you wanted to engage me in conversation and not insult me. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #274
It was an honest question. delrem Mar 2015 #275
I never said she wouldn't run on her record. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #276
Yes, these buzzwords sure the fuck are going to be a "staple" of a "New Deal". delrem Mar 2015 #278
I am hurt that you continue to verbally assault me but I refuse to respond in kind. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #281
I apologize for the verbal assault. I couldn't help it, so I'm doubly sorry. delrem Mar 2015 #284
No problem DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #322
I'm with you one squillion percent... gregcrawford Mar 2015 #57
I don't want her to be president. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #61
You will get your one vote. And get to wear the white hat. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #62
Ditto. SoapBox Mar 2015 #64
I remember that Kucinich was your guy in 2004. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #71
Some of us DO learn. bvar22 Mar 2015 #182
What's he doing, these days? MADem Mar 2015 #247
A man needs to earn a living and put food on his table./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #402
Yes, indeed. Valid point! MADem Mar 2015 #423
Why spend all that energy fighting for a good candidate when Wall Street can do it for us? whereisjustice Mar 2015 #73
Hillary is a centrist, and only a centrist will win in the General c588415 Mar 2015 #80
She is nowhere near centrist right now... android fan Mar 2015 #122
Indeed, Sanders or Warren would fit, nevertheless, neither would win in c588415 Mar 2015 #181
We've been fed that tired line about only a centrist can win just so we'll dflprincess Mar 2015 #204
Martin O'Malley mahina Mar 2015 #347
IMO Warren would win in an historic landslide. n/t totodeinhere Mar 2015 #337
We've been chasing the Republicans rightward for decades TDale313 Mar 2015 #206
"Corporate-Friendly Democrats Mobilize to Drag Party Rightward" & ^ here's one now! RiverLover Mar 2015 #293
+999999999999999999999999999999999999999 L0oniX Mar 2015 #308
lol - you sure got that right! whereisjustice Mar 2015 #311
I'm with ya! n/t zentrum Mar 2015 #82
I'm with you. Jester Messiah Mar 2015 #83
I want the Democratic nominee to be...... DFW Mar 2015 #84
What do you think about This Candidate's Background? KoKo Mar 2015 #87
I love his international background DFW Mar 2015 #102
I think Van Hollden would be a good candidate, TBH android fan Mar 2015 #130
Thanks...that's what struck me as so important for "These Times of Endless War/Engagements"... KoKo Mar 2015 #144
Koko, Van Hollen is another Third Way snake Oilwellian Mar 2015 #433
These are all good thoughts, my dear DFW. CaliforniaPeggy Mar 2015 #88
Ah, Peggy, don't jump the gun DFW Mar 2015 #107
Why do you think those like Bill Kristol is so desparate to keep Hillary out of the General Election Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #159
Not just Kristol on the right DFW Mar 2015 #240
As far as "distancing" from the republicans is really a TP theory, Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #326
She is a lightning rod Fritz Walter Mar 2015 #86
Welcome to DU, Fritz Walter! CaliforniaPeggy Mar 2015 #90
Line jumper The Jungle 1 Mar 2015 #92
I don't want her to be the Democratic nominee either MissDeeds Mar 2015 #93
ok and rtracey Mar 2015 #94
Most of them scream about Sanders being a "socialist" davidpdx Mar 2015 #154
really rtracey Mar 2015 #346
Not arguing against you davidpdx Mar 2015 #425
then I say rtracey Mar 2015 #431
Would you rather have a Rep. pres. Sick_of_TP Mar 2015 #97
"no questions asked" WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #99
I do not want ANY GOP to be President lobodons Mar 2015 #98
I'll wait too, but... AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #103
Neither do I Flatpicker Mar 2015 #112
You WERE a Democrat in good standing Android3.14 Mar 2015 #114
Hateful Negative HRC attacks Cryptoad Mar 2015 #116
You (and other Clinton supporters) are using a strawman to attack anyone who criticizes Clinton davidpdx Mar 2015 #166
Disagree on "The only reason Hillary Clinton would get elected is her husband" whereisjustice Mar 2015 #244
Well, ok maybe not hateful but a bit mean davidpdx Mar 2015 #260
She was a middle class kid who grew up to graduate from the most prestigious law school DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #266
So what? That doesn't entitle her to a anything. And it's hardly hateful to point it out. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #294
Three points. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #312
Sorry. Our party has decided that primaries suck. merrily Mar 2015 #119
Good point. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #120
Delighted to know that... brooklynite Mar 2015 #121
This message was self-deleted by its author irisblue Mar 2015 #126
Me neither. mahina Mar 2015 #127
I do not hate Hillary Clinton. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #134
This is just a replay of 2008. Didn't you say the same things then? Didn't the people who are OregonBlue Mar 2015 #135
OK. Pitch someone else, Will. MineralMan Mar 2015 #139
I will not vote for Hillary in the primary nor if she makes it to the general election. liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #140
Brilliant. sellitman Mar 2015 #218
You would be wrong. I have voted straight democratic ticket for 19 years but not anymore. liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #227
A wanna be Nader voter sellitman Mar 2015 #296
I am loving this. You people are hilarious. You don't really believe that bullying people on the liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #377
I second that sentiment. Maedhros Mar 2015 #459
They need to start a third party.... raindaddy Mar 2015 #147
Funny how Elizabeth Warren doesn't feel that way... brooklynite Mar 2015 #195
until the left stops ignoring the right's best weapon she's what dems get certainot Mar 2015 #148
Really? cyberspirit Mar 2015 #149
I DO think she'd be a great nominee.... for the REPUBLICAN Party. dirtydickcheney Mar 2015 #152
K & R Thespian2 Mar 2015 #153
I logged in just to recommend this. nt silvershadow Mar 2015 #156
No To HRC - Third Way - DLCer Extraordinaire cantbeserious Mar 2015 #157
there sure is a disconect here olddots Mar 2015 #164
Recommended. Now is the time to complain, to fight, to demand better. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #168
We're force fed rotten candidates that make false claims to get our votes, then turn around and blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #169
I don't like Hillary either BUT KauaiK Mar 2015 #172
you forgot Wrong on TPP. she helped write that piece of shit. nt magical thyme Mar 2015 #177
Aw, Will, why? tavalon Mar 2015 #180
Thank You! Faux pas Mar 2015 #186
lol WP, you eee-villl Hillary hater! That's what I've been called 4 espousin the same views. Welcome 2 a not so exclusive club! InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #188
We CAN do better. nt LWolf Mar 2015 #189
Like I have said before WHEN CRABS ROAR Mar 2015 #190
K&R DeSwiss Mar 2015 #191
Brilliant. Thanks for that post! Divernan Mar 2015 #216
HRC's corporate donors WILL call in their quid pro quos on SCOTUS appointments. Divernan Mar 2015 #192
Please tell me how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted on the cases you cited? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #285
Her SCOTUS appointments will be successfully blocked and obstructed to oblivion. L0oniX Mar 2015 #301
I'd respond "anyone but Hillary..." mike_c Mar 2015 #193
Who DO you support then ? V0ltairesGh0st Mar 2015 #194
OMG! sheshe2 Mar 2015 #208
Comparing WilliamPitt to Jame's O'Keefe? Maedhros Mar 2015 #461
succinctly V0ltairesGh0st Apr 2015 #495
I usually agree with you. tavernier Mar 2015 #201
No I don't think it will be Bush workinclasszero Mar 2015 #215
Ok, do you see my point, now? tavernier Mar 2015 #223
I'm on record predicting Cruz winning GOP nom. Although I think Walker is also a possibility. stevenleser Mar 2015 #344
I agree workinclasszero Mar 2015 #386
LOL, the old "Nominate Hillary or we will lose the General Election" BS. Classic! nt Logical Mar 2015 #219
Fair enough... Explain how a Bernie Sanders wins a national election. brooklynite Mar 2015 #222
I agree she will probably be the nominee. And I am very disappointed about it. Not a fan. nt Logical Mar 2015 #332
ATM, I DO think she has the best chance in the general.... Adrahil Mar 2015 #226
I tend to agree with you. Just not thrilled about her. nt Logical Mar 2015 #331
The only thing worse would be a TeaBagger for potus. Stellar Mar 2015 #221
Find a challenger. joshcryer Mar 2015 #230
I havent made up my mind. I realize it's an unpopular position but Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #232
I'll Just Say... K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2015 #233
The martyr... alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #236
Why are we comparing her to republican candidates? tularetom Mar 2015 #237
Why not? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #250
Really? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #310
Did you see the cover of this week's Time magazine? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #406
She wasn't in the Senate./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #407
Obviously, you haven't seen this week's Time magazine. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #408
They are clairvoyants. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #409
Ha ha ha!!!! Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #410
You suggested Time magazine knew how a senator would vote on an issue... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #412
Don't get personal about it. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #415
I didn't get personal... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #417
That is not the issue that is on the newstands this week. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #419
The persons who receives the most delegates is and should be the nominee./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #420
K&R we can do better!!!! fbc Mar 2015 #242
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #246
That's how it is now davidn3600 Mar 2015 #257
Nor do I. It is powerful to state that here. However... senseandsensibility Mar 2015 #256
Wrong on Syria! So many Democratic activists agree emsimon33 Mar 2015 #258
If forced by my Democratic Party to accept her as nominee, I will. raven mad Mar 2015 #269
Hey, you caused a shitstorm of a discussion, Mr. Pitt! nt delrem Mar 2015 #270
That's your prerogative. Your vote is your own. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #277
Neither do the Republicans n/t bobGandolf Mar 2015 #279
Clickbait. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #280
OP you forgot she's also incompetent. dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #286
We've been down this path before with these same exact posts in 2007 and I ask you this... LynneSin Mar 2015 #287
The alternative really scares me. anniebelle Mar 2015 #288
Let me know if anyone changes your mind. marym625 Mar 2015 #290
I made up my mind when republicans attacked her on the made up Benghazi bullshit. The B Calm Mar 2015 #291
A factor in Hillary's favor Poppy9159 Mar 2015 #292
okay then, we are being presented with a dilemma asiliveandbreathe Mar 2015 #297
Well we're not really voting for Hillary, we're voting for a SCOTUS pick that will be obstructed. L0oniX Mar 2015 #300
Why do people believe a corporate centered conservative like Hillary, wouldn't put a corporate whereisjustice Mar 2015 #307
Ignorance? L0oniX Mar 2015 #309
I'm shocked. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #303
I'd like to see a better candidate TBF Mar 2015 #306
Sherrod Brown.... Harriety Mar 2015 #313
When Rahm Emanuel said "where else are they [liberals] going to go?" it confirmed GoneFishin Mar 2015 #315
It appears that you and a few hundred DUers are in the same boat rock Mar 2015 #317
President Cruz is good for you? WhiteTara Mar 2015 #319
I don't either ctsnowman Mar 2015 #320
Will, when you're right, you're right! And you nailed it on the nose. marble falls Mar 2015 #324
By his own criteria, he's been wrong so often, we should ignore him. randome Mar 2015 #328
Like you and me, Will will vote for Hillary if a better candidate does not appear..... marble falls Mar 2015 #428
Pitt for President! IronLionZion Mar 2015 #327
Thank you! K&R! Daemonaquila Mar 2015 #330
BUT HILLARY IS A WOMAN!!! tomsaiditagain Mar 2015 #333
Hillary is way Different from Bush, Romney's etc they are trust fund Babies lewebley3 Mar 2015 #365
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Mar 2015 #334
K&R. I don't want her as the nominee, either. rury Mar 2015 #336
That's OK. I wanted you to be right on the Karl Rove indictment. Looks like disappointment for you stevenleser Mar 2015 #341
I wanted Jason Leopold to be right with the Rove indictment article, too. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #366
Jason Leopold kpete Mar 2015 #369
No doubt. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #372
It's totally unexplainable. It's unfathomable, to be frank about it. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #390
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #350
Posts # 44 and #310 refute your echo chamber nonsense rather well. Persondem Mar 2015 #353
Your a troll of the GOP, If Democrats work as team we can get anyone elected (Go Hillary) lewebley3 Mar 2015 #354
I'm a troll. OK. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #364
JURY: lotsa comments. A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2015 #375
Ow. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #376
Some jury results are like bad art. A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2015 #378
I agree red dog 1 Mar 2015 #405
"EPer"? A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2015 #422
Thanks for catching that red dog 1 Mar 2015 #465
There's that ...and then there are demigod oligarchy trolls. L0oniX Mar 2015 #438
Trolls that mean to do Harm to Democrats bash Democrats lewebley3 Mar 2015 #449
The "check spelling" tab only correct words ...not sentence structure. L0oniX Mar 2015 #478
Tough choice Ted Cruuz is going to announce still_one Mar 2015 #358
At Liberty University/NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #363
Really, I didn't know that still_one Mar 2015 #380
she is NOT my first choice kpete Mar 2015 #361
I just want to control both the White House and the Congress (w/supermajority again). ellisonz Mar 2015 #384
I'm currently reading a book by Bernie Sanders about one of his campaigns. Vinca Mar 2015 #385
I have absolutely no quarrel with what you've said. BobTheSubgenius Mar 2015 #387
...and just so we're clear: WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #388
(Rec # 289) Your a republican troll! I bet you even protested against the Invasion of Iraq! Zorra Mar 2015 #395
That leads to two conclusions customerserviceguy Mar 2015 #403
I don't want Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, I want a candidate who can win. George II Mar 2015 #404
K&R...Thanks for posting red dog 1 Mar 2015 #413
"By the way, you sure brought out the trolls with this one." WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #416
You cracked me up with that one! red dog 1 Mar 2015 #418
She is the best realFedUp Mar 2015 #414
Do ya think we'll even have a convention? fadedrose Mar 2015 #430
Care to point to the same angst you felt in 2000? brooklynite Mar 2015 #435
Gore was Vice President fadedrose Mar 2015 #442
Except that the VP isn't running... brooklynite Mar 2015 #445
I guess he's waiting for the woman fadedrose Mar 2015 #447
You're tired, are you? brooklynite Mar 2015 #456
I like David Axelrod fadedrose Mar 2015 #473
I think you're not looking at the big picture... brooklynite Mar 2015 #480
98 Senators out of 100 voted for the Patriot Act oberliner Mar 2015 #432
But that doesn't matter ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #455
I am going to explain it to you and end all of your "concerns." NCTraveler Mar 2015 #437
Perhaps you'll find solace in your own words ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #451
I thought you were over the Iraq vote. JTFrog Mar 2015 #458
To be fair, it's been TWELVE YEARS since that post. Maedhros Mar 2015 #462
And in those TWELVE YEARS, JTFrog Mar 2015 #463
I would imagine we would have seen more support Maedhros Mar 2015 #466
No... JTFrog Mar 2015 #470
Oh, you're using that tired talking point. Maedhros Mar 2015 #472
talk about 'tired talking points.' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #477
Me too neither. iscooterliberally Mar 2015 #460
thanks Will for bringing this up olddots Mar 2015 #467
If you don't like Hillary you may not be a democrat. ileus Mar 2015 #468
Wrong on C Street. KamaAina Mar 2015 #469
This ain't Burger King, bro. In a Corporate Oligarchy, you get it their way, or you get it Zorra Mar 2015 #471
Hey Pitt....Too many posts in this thread fadedrose Mar 2015 #475
We are going ot have a primary. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #476
The primary is a "gong" show now??? L0oniX Mar 2015 #479
DURec leftstreet Mar 2015 #481
K&R woo me with science Mar 2015 #490
Well said, Will. City Lights Mar 2015 #491
Resistance is futile. JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2015 #494
 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
2. I don't want her either.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:01 PM
Mar 2015

I also don't have anybody I DO want as of yet. So, I hope a BUNCH of folks run and give us a good primary. She doesn't like answering for her actions. That scares me how much she avoid it and I'll never forget what a NASTY campaign she ran.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
54. Yep. Relics of the past.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:39 PM
Mar 2015

No more Welfare Reform, Drug Warrior Clintons or Evil Stupid Bushes. No thanks.

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
183. Remember "the bridge to the 21st century"?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:10 PM
Mar 2015

We crossed it, and now Hillary threatens to take us right back over it - in the other direction.

 

QuestionAlways

(259 posts)
202. OK, So let us have a more Right wing Supreme Court for the next 20 years
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:18 PM
Mar 2015

That will solve a lot of problems

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
203. The supreme court is the ONLY reason I vote in the Presidential from now on.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:21 PM
Mar 2015

And wtf is wrong with wanting a primary? With a bunch of candidates?

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
298. What makes you think that a president with so many right wing
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:43 AM
Mar 2015

Tendencies would nominate leftwing scotus judges?

Response to QuestionAlways (Reply #202)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
382. And if she loses, that's exactly what we're going to get. Let's have Dem Candidate that
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:41 PM
Mar 2015

people can get enthusiastic about, not someone whose only selling point is FEAR.

 

Pharaoh

(8,209 posts)
210. actually
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:41 PM
Mar 2015

the economy was booming and pre 911 every thing looked pretty rosy. We we could go back to that time before the Bush coup....

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
213. Welfare refrom hit the poorest women.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:47 PM
Mar 2015

I talk to quite a few who remember and do not want a repeat. They see it as the time DEMOCRATS chipped away at the social safety net.

 

Pharaoh

(8,209 posts)
217. yes
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:13 PM
Mar 2015

that was bad. Was easy to slip under the wire when the economy was booming. But other than this Orwellian nightmare we live in now.......... I'd love to have it back!!

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
220. I know.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:22 PM
Mar 2015

But I think we forget about the things tht have the most long term damage. Look at the poverty rates in children, especially single parent households. Poorer than ever and imo that is directly tied to welfare reform and it left an open for republicans to pull all that drug testing bullshit. Now they want a go at foodstamps. We opened that door through the Clintons and the vampires in congress have sucked the poor dry. I don't want to go back to hurting the poor in order to have a 'booming' economy.

 

Pharaoh

(8,209 posts)
224. I Know.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:40 PM
Mar 2015

I have no argument about that dear Bravenak, they are coming for our medicare and social security even as we speak. They are evil scum sucking maggots. And that's about the nicest thing I can say about these corporate capitalists.

I'm in the Warren, Sanders, Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party. No more Clinton's that's for sure!

marym625

(17,997 posts)
393. Don't forget that the unreal
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:59 PM
Mar 2015

Recovery and financial boom of the Clinton years was based on fabrication to a large degree. Between the deregulations, the false gains and the, derivatives, there was no way there wouldn't have been a burst of the bubble.

Don't get me wrong, the bushies and the gop made everything even worse. But we can't forget that it was clinton's deregulations that helped things along.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
397. Yep. I remember the paper princess economy.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:08 PM
Mar 2015

All dazzle no substance. Then the big ass dot com boom and bust cycle came soon after. Then the gop. I'd like future Democratic presidents to avoid hurting those who are most vulnerable even if that means the big guys wont donate. I never vote for the guy with the best commercial unless i was already voting for him. And I don't see how liberal drug warriors are going to get young voters to the polls. Or to be democrats.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
399. Let's just hope they're actually paying attention
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:13 PM
Mar 2015

Otherwise, we're screwed. Again. And probably for the last time. Will be no coming back

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
314. My friend
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:30 AM
Mar 2015

African American unemployment was its lowest level in a generation
African American home ownership was at its highest level in a generation.
The poverty level which disproportionately affects persons of color was its lowest level in a generation.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
348. The child poverty rate among single parent housholds is extremly high NOW.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:49 PM
Mar 2015

I believe that welfare reform has alot to do with that as it was the only thing keeping many children from starving.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
349. IMHO, it's higher now because a weak economy is going to hurt those most in need first.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:52 PM
Mar 2015

What's the old saw about "last hired, first fired''?

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
352. Especially when the social safety net has already been cut during 'good times'.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:13 PM
Mar 2015

That left poor families with no support during the hardest times, time limits, being pushed into low paying jobs. I live right around thd corner and applied after the crash. The process is now very difficult, sanctions on your case if you cannot find a job, no food stamps if you are a drug felon, etc. all that is thanks to welfare reform. Let's not pretend. I am an example of a person who was fortunately not on welfare on the time, but did go to the 'county building' with my aunts and cousins and watched the process play out time and again. I know povert and i know that welfare reform hit the black and brown community the worst. We don't need that again. Let's not forget the Clintons are also Drug warriors who went for manditory minimums and three strikes which ALSO hit the black and poor communities the hardset. See how those two things are tied? No foodstamps for drugs crimes + a ramp up of the drug war to get MORE convictions for drug crimes. That way you can give out less assistance and more punishments for the poor especially the black community. Things like this have been going on so long and are DESIGNED to do exactly what they do. Harm the poor. When people say that it's not true, I wonder about their cognitive abilities and their honesty level. We should NEVER make excuses to cut services to the poor. They didn't magically get rich during the 90's. They got harmed and ignored.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
379. 'Welfare Reform' hit the poorest, single moms and their children BEFORE the economy
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:19 PM
Mar 2015

collapsed. The Clintons are part of the Third Way/DLC and that makes them supportive of the anti-Social Safety net policies of that organization, and it IS an organization whose Board of Directors is made up of Wall St. Investment Bankers. They have no relationship or understanding, OR INTEREST in the working class or the poor.

And it's way past time to keep on denying what happened to the Dem Party and way past time to start fixing it. We don't need TWO parties promoting the Heritage Foundation's policies.

We need an OPPOSITION party, and Hillary is certainly not going to be a part of that.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
421. What year was that, 1996, when welfare became workfare?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:23 PM
Mar 2015

I remember seeing the furor in the news at the time, but can't remember when that took place.
Then, of course, Bush got in to the White House and he didn't even attempt to raise the minimum wage, and now it has been years since any improvement has been done concerning that issue.


sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
424. I'm not sure of the exact year, but Clinton signed into law. And airc, he knew how unpopular it was
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:50 PM
Mar 2015

among those who had voted for him and promised to 'fix it', which of course never happened.

That was a Republican Dream Come True and it was a Democrat, now we know of course that there are two kinds of 'democrats' who signed it.

An FDR Dem would NEVER have signed that bill. But that was when the DLC began taking over our Party.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
426. August 22, 1996.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:47 AM
Mar 2015

That's what I thought, it was just before the 1996 Presidential election!!


During the 1980s and 1990s, criticism of public welfare escalated dramatically. Some states began to experiment with programs that required welfare recipients to find work within a specified period of time, after which welfare benefits would cease. Since job training and Child Care are important components of such programs, proponents acknowledged that "workfare" programs save little money in the short term. They contended, however, that workfare would reduce welfare costs and move people away from government dependency over the long term.

These state efforts paved the way for radical changes in federal welfare law. On August 22, 1996, President bill clinton, a Democrat, signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (popularly known as the Welfare Reform Act), a bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The act eliminated some federal welfare programs, placed permanent ceilings on the amount of federal funding for welfare, and gave each state a block grant of money to help run its own welfare programs. The law also directs each state legislature to come up with a new welfare plan that meets new federal criteria. Under the 1996 law, federal funds can be used to provide a total of only five years of aid in a lifetime to a family. In the early 2000s, Congress continued to debate the reauthorization of the 1996 law. Proponents of the law pronounced the reform effort a great success. States had met the requirement of halving their welfare rolls by 2002. In addition, many former welfare recipients had entered the workforce and child poverty had been reduced for the first time since the early 1970s. However, some commentators attributed much of the success to the strong economy of the late 1990s that produced jobs for those coming off welfare. They also noted that welfare recipients were employed in mostly low-wage jobs. Moreover, as the economy took a nosedive in 2001 and 2002, unemployment rose. By the end of 2002, welfare caseloads had increased in 26 states.

In 2003, President george w. bush proposed major changes to the reauthorized welfare reform law. Under his proposals, welfare recipients would have to work 40 hours per week at a job or in a program designed to help the recipient achieve independence. This initiative, coupled with a Medicaid proposal that would give block grants to the states for managing health care services for indigent persons, faced an uncertain fate in Congress.


Link --
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/a+Brief+History+of+Welfare+Reform

merrily

(45,251 posts)
484. Someone here claimed Bubba had actually campaigned on welfare "reform." And, as I keep saying,
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 11:13 PM
Mar 2015

I used to think "reform" meant improvement. Now, I realize it means I should run the hell away. In any event, whether he campaigned on welfare reform or not, I am relatively sure that most Democrats who heard that did not realize it would soon translate to bragging about having ended "welfare" as we know it.

This is one of the reasons I am not too impressed that he left a "modest budget surplus" when he left office. Between all the tax and fee hikes of the Reagan administration and a famous one of Poppy "Read My Lips" Bush's adminstration and ending welfare as we know it, a modest budget surplus was not, IMO, a huge accomplishment. And it was on the backs of poor adults and children.

Now, if we can also cut Social Security and medical care for the disabled as well, we'll be fantastic "pragmatic centrists," won't we?

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
487. and if you knew anything about the '92 campaign, you'd know he did.
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 12:26 PM
Mar 2015


Facts don't change over the passage of time.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
488. My post did not dispute the other poster's claim and it was irrelevant to point of my post anyway.
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:32 PM
Mar 2015

From my post:

"In any event, whether he campaigned on welfare reform or not....."

Never suggested the other poster was mistaken or deceptive. My post simply indicated to sabrina 1 that I was not stating that particular bit of history of my own knowledge.




if you knew anything about the '92 campaign, you'd know he did.


Clearly untrue. Not knowing whether Clinton had campaigned on welfare reform or not does not mean I know absolutely nothing about that campaign. But, again, what I personally know about the 1992 campaign was aldo irrelevant to my post. In fact, it's irrelevant to any post of mine. I never claimed to know everything about any campaign.


Facts don't change over the passage of time.


Another straw man and also irrelevant to my post.



wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
489. You said someone 'claimed' it. No, someone stated it, because it is a fact
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:12 AM
Mar 2015
Another straw man


Another misuse of a logical fallacy.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
492. I already responded to your first point and your second is "merely wrong."
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:45 PM
Mar 2015

Last word on this is yours if you want it.

 

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)
398. Not One Peep About 911
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:12 PM
Mar 2015

It was completely covered up and our side at the leadership level was too afraid to say anything.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
360. You Sound like the GOP, Hillary, had been a Democrat over 30 years.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:43 PM
Mar 2015


Speak for your self, we Democrats, do want Hillary!!!

I have been a democrat for 25 years, I held my nose and

voted for Obama. Hillary should run on Obama record,

and he should be out there working or her, as every American

should. If the GOP win, this country will be at War, that

is what all treason was about.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
443. Not only that, Obama is not a good American?
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:14 AM
Mar 2015

because he is not out campaigning for HC?

Why should he. He gave her a job when she was unemployed, what else do they expect?

And the people she supported in the 2014 elections backed away from Obama calling themselves "Clinton" democrats as opposed to "FDR" Democrats, or "Obama Democrats." And they all lost.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
474. What (explained)
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:58 PM
Mar 2015

Here's what lewebley3 said in post #360 which you replied to.

"I held my nose and voted for Obama. Hillary should run on Obama record, and he should be out there working or her, as every American should......

He held his nose, and because Obama is not out there working for Hillary he's not doing what all Americans should do....(what nerve)

He's not only speaking for all of us, he's very critical of Obama. I can't put up with that from a HC supporter who wants to USE Obama.....


ghostsinthemachine

(3,569 posts)
7. I could never vote for Biden
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:04 PM
Mar 2015

after the RAVE ACT being attached to the Amber Alert bill. We don't need drug warriors we need healers.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
231. That's my issue with Biden, as well.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:12 AM
Mar 2015

That inane RAVE act was a craptastic piece of legislation, if ever there was one.

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
241. His work for his Delaware corporations on the bankrtuptcy bill he championed is also a problem...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:42 AM
Mar 2015

... that has lead to many of the problems Americans are in today as a result, and why debt is such a problem for many in America today.

Now Biden has a lot of other attributes, but this bill and his work on it is one reason he wouldn't be my first choice either.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
370. He is not running and he Ran twice and Lost, GO Hillary!!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:03 PM
Mar 2015


Hillary is a great candidate, she should pick Sheri Brown
for VP

The GOP cannot win without Ohio, also Ohio labor is
very strong. It handed a defeat to the governor.

They know how to organize to win the state!!

awake

(3,226 posts)
374. I had heard that he was in Iowa a short while back
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:07 PM
Mar 2015

So I had not ruled him out, has he said that he was not going to run?

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
163. So, three voices constitute the Democratic Party now...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:40 PM
Mar 2015

...and are you saying she's too scared to stand up to pressure if she wants to run?

merrily

(45,251 posts)
170. Sure, Gov Brown, Schumer, Van De Huevel, Frank all saying the same thing is pure coincidence.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:49 PM
Mar 2015

When you objected to "only" Schumer, I told you you would say much the same no matter how many links I provided and you've just proved me right.

But, to an honest observer, the reality of what is happening and has been happening all along with this primary speaks louder than 100 sources.

The burden has now definitely shifted to you to stop counting how "few" big names in the party I can provide and start proving that what I am saying is wrong, that the party has been supporting a genuine primary all along.

and are you saying she's too scared to stand up to pressure if she wants to run







brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
174. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that "the Party" is opposed to a Primary...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:55 PM
Mar 2015

...are they preventing Warren or anyone else from running? Threatening them? In any way interfering in the political process?

And if that's the case, are you saying that Warren, or Sanders, or O'Malley are all too cowardly to call the Party out?

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
225. That's good enough for me.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:41 PM
Mar 2015

Fight for who you want in the primaries. Support the D in the in general.

aquart

(69,014 posts)
427. Good enough for me, too.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:58 AM
Mar 2015

Frankly, the purists around here make me sick. There is no purity in presidential politics. NONE. What there is is a need to make frightening amounts of cash. Hillary's biggest crime here seems to be her common sense.

I see her being hated, here of all places, for her stubborn and staggering ambition. What patience! What careful walking through the IED-strewn mud of DC politics. I couldn't do it. She awes me.

Were some of her votes crappy? Yeah. But Will has listed so very few.Surely there were more? Lotta votes 2 terms in the Senate.THAT'S ALL YUH GOT, WILL? Maybe because those other votes weren't so corporatist?

Yeah, I can live with the rock and a hard place votes where ambition for something other than sainthood made the choice. I can.

Anybody thinks Hillary Clinton is JUST LIKE A REPUBLICAN really needs to look at the rest of her votes.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
58. Who cares?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:44 PM
Mar 2015

if disaffected intellectuals and those that fancy themselves as such could win elections we would have had presidents Debs, Thomas, and Henry Wallace.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
142. I supported the anti-war general in the 04 primaries.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:55 PM
Mar 2015

Oh, 00 was the only time I actually saddled my party with a loser by my primary vote since I started voting in 1980 and Gore actually won.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
362. As usual with you, you're changing the subject.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:49 PM
Mar 2015

Your previous post was claiming that the left are morons who don't know how to win elections.....by going far back in history.

I pointed out that the recent track record of DLC-style Democrats is poor - Gore's campaign was shitty enough to be close. Kerry's campaign was bad, 2010 and 2014 were bad. Heck, Bill Clinton won 1992 due to Perot siphoning off libertarians from GW Bush. Who didn't do this strategy recently? Obama.

Yet Third-way style is the strategy you insist we must follow. One that has shown itself to fail repeatedly.

Third-way doesn't work. It assumes there's a vast, unrepresented middle that's desperate for half-way between Republican and Democrat. There isn't. Polling shows there is a pool of Democratic-leaning voters and Republican-leaning voters that do or do not turn out based on the candidate. Third-way doesn't turn out the Democratic-leaning voters and we lose.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
367. I didn't claim anybody was morons....
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:57 PM
Mar 2015

To be even handed, George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, and Howard Phillips demonstrate there aren't enough yahoos to elect a president...

Also, wasn't the theme of Al Gore's campaign the "people versus the powerful" and didn't he run away from the Clinton legacy as much as possible, right down to his choice of running mate?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
391. And now we move on to the pedantic phase
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:30 PM
Mar 2015

You don't have to literally say the word "moron" to make your point abundantly clear.

Also, wasn't the theme of Al Gore's campaign the "people versus the powerful"

One trite phrase does not a campaign make. In fact...

didn't he run away from the Clinton legacy as much as possible, right down to his choice of running mate?

Yes, by going further to the right.

That's kinda the point I was making.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
392. The Clintons are 10-2 in general elections against the Republicans.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:51 PM
Mar 2015

They have earned the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are successful campaigners, am I right?

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
436. Even though he's third way and said as much before the campaign and after
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:20 AM
Mar 2015

I guess you weren't listening.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
440. He's governed following third way.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:32 AM
Mar 2015

His 2008 campaign, OTOH, was to the left of how he has governed.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
441. He wrote the most eloquently written Third Way manifesto ever.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:43 AM
Mar 2015

In my oversized edition of Audacity of Hope:

Pg.8-9

Examples of "New Democrat speak."

pg. 10

Obama expresses centrist/DLC beliefs on free market competition. He states his feeling that many government programs (social programs) have not worked as advertised.

pg. 11

Obama rejects special interests, or single issue, politics based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or victimhood - one of the purpose of the DLC. "Common good." Bill Clinton.

pg. 20

Despite Barbara Boxer signing on to Rep. Stepanie Tubbs Jones' challenge of the 2004 presidential election, Obama votes to certify it, believing Bush won the election despite evidence of voter fraud in Ohio.

Pg. 23

Obama recognizes the global war on terrorism is real, and not a "bumpersticker slogan." But he calls it a "the battle against international terrorism," one he believes should be addressed both by dealing with global poverty and a "judicious projection of military power."

Pg.24

Though he admits he believes Democratic ideology is more grounded in fact than that of the GOP, Obama expresses disdain for the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal." He says the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes."

pg. 31

Obama says liberals of the 60s/70s valued entitlements over duties and responsibilities.

----------------

He uses the Bush administration’s tough language to talk about national security in the age of terrorism (“if we have to go it alone, the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country”)

He assails President Bush for waging an unnecessary and misguided war in Iraq and for promoting an “Ownership Society” that “magnifies the uneven risks and rewards of today’s winner-take-all economy.” Yet he also takes the Democrats to task for becoming “the party of reaction”: “In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.”

His thoughts on domestic and foreign policy try to hew to this consensus-building line. Some of his recommendations devolve into little more than fuzzy statements of the obvious: i.e., that America’s “addiction to oil” is affecting the economy and undermining national security, or that the education system needs to be revamped and improved. Others echo Bill Clinton’s “third way,” methodically triangulating between traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal ideas.

Mr. Obama writes that “conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.”

SO much more from his book which is the most eloquently written Third Way manifesto ever.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
444. Yeah, that's why the Third way candidate crushed him in the primary.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:30 AM
Mar 2015

Oh wait....the opposite happened.

Third Way talks a good game, which is why you can find a lot of overlap. Doesn't mean they govern that way. Their priorities don't match the rhetoric.

While some of Obama's 2008 campaign was Third-Way, other campaign themes were far from it. We're talking about real life here. There isn't a specific system that everyone copies.

If you want to claim Obama is a fantastic Third-way candidate, why did he run to the left of Clinton and win? If we're all craving third-way, shouldn't Clinton have crushed a not-even-one-term Senator with a funny name?

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
446. Identity politics
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:40 AM
Mar 2015

The math is simple: Black voters represent about 20 percent of Democratic voters, and Mrs. Clinton went from winning them by a modest margin, depending on the poll, to losing by at least an 80-to-20 margin. That shift would have diminished Mrs. Clinton’s national primary vote margin by about 15 percentage points.

While some of Obama's 2008 campaign was Third-Way, other campaign themes were far from it. We're talking about real life here. There isn't a specific system that everyone copies.


In other words, 'progressives' weren't paying attention or were in deep denial. The facts were right in front of them.

Here's a story for you.

In 1986 or '87 Donnie Osmond had a conversation with Michael Jackson about a potential comeback. Jackson told Osmond the problem wasn't the music but "Your name is poison."

So Osmond released "Soldier Of Love" to a limited amount of radio stations under a fake name and it became a regional hit in the places it was played. Eventually, word spread it was really by Donnie Osmond.

So Obama writes a book called "The Audacity of Hope" in which he praises the Third Way, praises Clinton's welfare reform, expresses his support for private social security companion accounts, advocates a free market capitalist system, states many of the Johnson-era social programs have not worked, states terrorism should be fought militarily, and essentially calls the left and the right opposite sides of the same coin.

After the book he altered (maybe just slightly) his stance on NAFTA. He disappointed many with his FISA vote, his position on teacher's merit pay, and probably a few others I don't recall.

Funny thing is, during the primaries the only people pointing this out were people like me (and I actually complimented him for it) and far-left outlets like Counterpunch and one of the socialist websites (I forget which one.)

Obama is Donnie Osmond. The left would only disapprove of his policies if he had them three letters attached to his name. D.L.C.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
452. While I agree with much you have written ...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:15 PM
Mar 2015

in this thread, and other posts in general ... I have to disagree with your chalking up the Black vote going to Candidate Obama as mere "Identity politics" ... As you correctly note, Candidate Hillary Clinton held a significant lead among African-Americans until late in the primary ... long after people (African-Americans) discovered he was African-American.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
453. Here's an interesting piece comparing Sen. Warren's chances vs. Sen. Obama's results
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:21 PM
Mar 2015
Elizabeth Warren Is No Barack Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/upshot/elizabeth-warren-is-no-barack-obama.html?abt=0002&abg=1

Good reading here - touches on the identity politics theory I mentioned - but lots more.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
108. So it can be used as a cudgel later.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:33 PM
Mar 2015

"Well, Clinton's gonna win, and you said you'd vote for the nominee, so you should just vote for Clinton in the primary. Otherwise, you're harming our nominee by making it appear the party is fractured."

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
115. The arrogance of "Clinton will be President, shut up"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:38 PM
Mar 2015

is pretty much a huge sign as to why I shouldn't vote for her in the primary.

We still have such archaic functions as voting for our front-runners and just because Hillary thinks she is entitled to be President doesn't mean everybody does.

I'm terrified of anyone that is 100% sure they are entitled to be President, because those are folks that will not lend themselves to self-examination. Which is exactly how Bush governed and look what that got us.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
214. Thanks.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:50 PM
Mar 2015

I tend to say what is on my mind plainly.

It offends a few, but some are offended by hot water, air to breathe and a toilet to sit on if they couldn't establish that they though of it first.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
200. It's not only Hillary, though. The Party thinks she's entitled to be President with no primary to
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:02 PM
Mar 2015

speak of. That is what I find horrifying. If it were only Hillary, it would not be anywhere near as big a deal. Sure wasn't in 2008.

Response to merrily (Reply #200)

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
325. interesting comment here ...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:01 AM
Mar 2015
I'm terrified of anyone that is 100% sure they are entitled to be President, ...


While, I agree with the state (and why I cannot bring myself to do anything that might lead to a gop presidency .. the "not lend themselves to self-examination" part), question:

Other than pundits and the anti-HRC folks ... who has HRC as entitled to be President?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
357. Clinton.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:41 PM
Mar 2015

So far, her pseudo-campaign has not behaved as if she was running in a Democratic primary. Instead, she's been acting more like she's in a DLC-style presidential campaign.

In other words, she's currently pandering to moderate Republicans instead of shoring up the primary.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
485. Sen. Schumer, Gov. Brown, former Rep Barney Frank, long time Democratic
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 11:22 PM
Mar 2015

strategists like Shields and Shrum, the folks at MSNBC.

A far better question from people who are sincerely seeking truth in this matter might well be, who in a position to have inside Democratic Party info has been saying there should be vigorous primary challenges to Hillary? Or actively encouraging other candidates to run?

Remember, in 2008, all we heard about a primary that Hillary chose to extend well beyond the point at which she had any mathematical chance of winning whatever, was not that it wasted time, money and energy that Senator Obama could have spent battling McCain. It was the the primary had been so wonderful for voters, Obama and the Party. Now, all we hear is that a primary challenge is the worst possible thing for a Presidential candidate. Double think?

Given that so many professional politicians do aspire to be President someday, it is extraordinary that, as early as 2012--before Obama was even re-elected, I was hearing on TV almost daily that the 2016 nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it; and, if she chose to run, no Democrat would even bother to oppose her in a primary.

When has that EVER been said about a Presidential primary in which no incumbent is running?

What do people like Shrum and Matthews have to offer anyone if it is not their credibility on political matters? Why would they risk their bread and butter on such an unprecedented kind of statement?

Why are the same people who were saying how the 2008 primary was the best possible thing for the party and its Presidential candidate now saying a Presidential primary would be the worst possible thing for the party and Hillary?

And who the hell ever said publicly that primaries were not about party voters, only about "the Party" (whatever the hell that is, apart from voters) and its anointee?

Why are so many supposedly typical Democatic posters here saying it?

Come on, isbm, you're so much smarter than your framing of that question.





 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
486. Are the Democratic Party leaders that you name ...
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:25 AM
Mar 2015

saying that HRC is ENTITLED to the Democratic nomination/Presidency? Or, are they making the political calculation that HRC is the Democratic Party's best shot at retaining the Presidency? There is a vast difference between these statements ... and I think how one answers these questions, is more based in one's opinion of HRC. I suspect if one opposes a HRC Presidency (for what ever reason), one will ascribe to the former; whereas, if one supports, or is agnostic on a HRC presidency, one will ascribe to the latter.

A far better question from people who are sincerely seeking truth in this matter might well be, who in a position to have inside Democratic Party info has been saying there should be vigorous primary challenges to Hillary? Or actively encouraging other candidates to run?


Again, if the named parties are basing their support on their political calculation, why should they promote a "vigorous primary challenge" or want to encourage other candidates, that they have considered and rejected as viable (electable) contenders? The fact is, if one is settled on a candidate (i.e., consider Candidate "A" the most viable/electable candidate), there is far more to lose, than gain by primary challenges ... and any front-running candidate that says they welcome a primary challenge is playing to the crowd, as they realize the risk.

Remember, in 2008, all we heard about a primary that Hillary chose to extend well beyond the point at which she had any mathematical chance of winning whatever, was not that it wasted time, money and energy that Senator Obama could have spent battling McCain. It was the the primary had been so wonderful for voters, Obama and the Party. Now, all we hear is that a primary challenge is the worst possible thing for a Presidential candidate. Double think?


Who is saying that? ... Certainly not the failed 2008 HRC campaign or her 2008 supporters and certainly not the Democratic Party leadership ... except in fence-mending hindsight.

Given that so many professional politicians do aspire to be President someday, it is extraordinary that, as early as 2012--before Obama was even re-elected, I was hearing on TV almost daily that the 2016 nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it; and, if she chose to run, no Democrat would even bother to oppose her in a primary.


That speaks more to the drama seeking media, than anything else. And it speaks (worse) to those professional politician aspirants' lack of political courage/conviction. Doesn't it?

What do people like Shrum and Matthews have to offer anyone if it is not their credibility on political matters? Why would they risk their bread and butter on such an unprecedented kind of statement?


Doesn't that speak to their political calculation that HRC was/is the Democratic Party's best shot at retaining the presidency? As you correctly indicate, all Shrum and Matthews have is their credibility on political matters. Their taking such an unprecedented stance, suggests that after surveying the field of possible contenders, they made their choice.

Why are the same people who were saying how the 2008 primary was the best possible thing for the party and its Presidential candidate now saying a Presidential primary would be the worst possible thing for the party and Hillary?


I think you are making up the first part of that question. At best, those saying that the 2008 primaries were the best thing for the Party, were Candidate Obama supporters (just as you are doing now) or are doing so with the benefit of hindsight.

Why are so many supposedly typical Democatic posters here saying it?


I suspect that it's because: 1) those saying it are HRC supporters; 2) those saying it have made a similar political calculation as the Democratic Party leaders that you named ... that HRC is the most electable candidate that the Democrats can field in 2016.

Come on, isbm, you're so much smarter than your framing of that question.


My "smartness" in the framing of my question is not at issue here ... rather, it is simply a matter of your disagreeing with the premise/proposition.

HappyMe

(20,277 posts)
439. Well said.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015

It wasn't that long ago that we would laugh at the republicans lock stepping. Now, even before announcements, primaries and convention, we are expected to lock step (it's been this way for at least a damn year/year and a half).

Response to Aerows (Reply #115)

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
146. "you're harming our nominee by making it appear the party is fractured." LOL. The Democratic
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:00 PM
Mar 2015

Party fractured? Never.

What I see is that the conservative wing think like typical conservatives, that everyone should be unified behind the "chosen" leader, and some how HRC is seen by them to be the "chosen".

On the playground, there were always some that chose to side with the biggest bully. The Oligarch Rulers are the biggest bully and their choice is HRC or Bush, so naturally some will back the biggest bully. During the Revolutionary War, these people would have backed Great Britain. These people are afraid to demand their liberties and freedoms, choosing instead to let their authoritarian leaders take care of them.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
199. Democrats used to pride themselves on NOT being Stepford lockstep, which was the right's schtick.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:00 PM
Mar 2015
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers (Lots of good quotes by Will Rogers at that link, including about "trickle down." I had no idea Hoover had tried selling trickle down!)

Now, we're striving for Stepford, lest the anointing of Hillary be criticized.

Reinforces what I always say: the right acts like the right, regardless of which letter they stick in the parentheses after their names.
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
207. You said it well. I completely agree. Conservatives are conservatives even if they call
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:37 PM
Mar 2015

themselves Democrats.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
109. Can't speak for Cali, but I can speak for Aerows
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:33 PM
Mar 2015

I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure that Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee and someone that is an actual Democrat that isn't seeking war in the Middle East IS the nominee.

Hillary Clinton is in no way "entitled" to the Democratic Nomination nor the Presidency. That's why she lost the last time, and her supporters were stunned by that.

She gives off this air that "I'm gonna be President, and there is nothing you can do about it" which is off-putting for a lot of people - Democrats, feminists, and everyone else that isn't interested in being told how they *will* vote.

I'll be voting for Elizabeth Warren if she runs, but if not? Martin O'Malley.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
16. Agree, Will, but what are the alternatives? Expecially if Warren, Sanders and O'Malley don't run
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:12 PM
Mar 2015

because Hillary has sucked up all the money and energy?

I'd like both Warren and Sanders to stay in the Senate because their voices are so important there. But, I'd take either Sanders or Warren over Hillary if they decided to run and vote for them. O'Malley just doesn't do it for me.

Have you checked out Chris Van Hollen. Wiki Search on him shows an incredible background with him growing up in Pakistan, (father was a Diplomat there...fastastic background on him) and his mother was a CIA Expert on Russian Affairs. His background including Harvard would fit well with Obama's and is better in many respects. He doesn't have Big Corporate Donor liabilities and his voting record is a bit rated better than Hillary's.

Given all our Military Interventions all over the ME and Africa and the new Cold War with Russia this guy would be super for Foreign Relations Experience that would top Sanders, Warren or O'Malley and even Hillary as SOS.

Anyway .....I'm on a thing about him because I'm so desperate to have a primary with many to challenge Hillary....but, Van Hollen could be a last minute DRAFT if Hillary falters in her Campaign or has health problem or such. He's running for Senate in MD but Donna Edwards is very popular and it might split the vote...so why shouldn't he throw his hat in the ring at the last minute?

Anyway...desperation.... but check out his WIKI. I have his voting record somewhere but I can't dig it out now.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
137. Excuse me
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:52 PM
Mar 2015

for not getting excited over things that Newsmax and Politico state as fact all of the sudden.

Maybe if WorldNutDaily said it, I should believe it???

merrily

(45,251 posts)
141. Huh? I cited quotes from Rep. Frank (video), Gov. Brown, Sen. Schumer (Daily Kos), Katrina
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:54 PM
Mar 2015

Katrina van den Heuvel's article.

Did you even look at the info before you replied?

MTP last Sunday also had video of Jerry Brown saying the last thing he'd want is a primary challenger, but I just did not find the link as quickly as I found the link to the Barney Frank video. However, since I had seen the video of Brown, I had no reason to question the print source. But, I edited the original post of mine to add a link to WAPO of Brown saying much the same thing as I saw him say on video.



 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
150. I saw Newsmax
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:12 PM
Mar 2015

and Politico.

Newsmax is just shy of being worldnutdaily, so I didn't bother.

I tend to agree with you on most things, merrily, but on Hillary the inevitable? No, I do not. The Democratic Party deserves better than that.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
151. I saw Brown say it on video. My links are to the effect that the party thinks primaries are bad.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:14 PM
Mar 2015

That is not me. That's the party. The last thing I want is no primary or only a dog and pony show primary. See my sig line.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
160. Didn't mean to accuse you of such.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:36 PM
Mar 2015

I'm just really over the "Hillary the inevitable because she is the only one that can win" buzz.

We have plenty of excellent Democrats. I apologize because I should know better coming from you, merrily

merrily

(45,251 posts)
211. Apology not needed, but accepted. If she were really the only one who could win, they would welcome
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:42 PM
Mar 2015

a real primary. Instead, they are doing all they can to discourage one. And what the party says carries weight with donors, the media, etc.

Do we really expect someone who wants a political career as a Democrat to go against the Democratic Party, the donors, the media, etc.?

Believe me, I will not be voting for Hillary in the primary, even if I have to write in someone. But, that's no help in the general.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
185. Maybe this?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:18 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/13/jerry-brown-says-challenging-hillary-clinton-is-like-challenging-jerry-brown/

What a disappointing comment from Brown. The party establishment does indeed seem to be pushing the notion that challenging Hillary Clinton's nomination is the same as hurting the party. This is such a perversion of the process and only highlights the fact that she should not be the nominee.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
197. Thank you. I saw Brown in a video saying this or something similar.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:52 PM
Mar 2015

So, I am very sure he said it, regardless of which sources chose to reprint what he said--and which didn't.

WAPO is a right leaning source, too, but it's not exactly FOX News, either. Neither is politico. However, anyone who refuses even to look at a story in politico can also refuse to look at a story in WAPO.

Pretty soon, someone is going to have to admit that sources that support Democrats are not necessarily going to be printing articles that don't necessarily flatter Democrats. And the reverse is true of sources that support Republicans. So, if you want to keep on the blinders, you just may not get the full story if all you want to acknowledge are stories from Rachel Maddow.

red dog 1

(27,647 posts)
401. Thanks for that link
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:24 PM
Mar 2015

I had no idea that Jerry Brown thought that way.

As a lifetime Californian, I have always supported Brown; but I sure don't agree with him on this.

I wish he had just left it at: "A primary challenge to her .doesn't look like a fruitful use of my time."

But for him to add
"I would say that she's extremely formidable and it doesn't appear that there's anything that would block her path."
is, IMO, a dumb thing for him to say.

One thing "that would block her path" is the fact that there seem to be so many Democrats who would prefer Elizabeth Warren, who isn't even planning on running for POTUS.

Another "thing that would block her path" is the very popular Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who IS thinking of running for POTUS, and who I like as much as I like Elizabeth Warren, but he would have to become a Democrat to get my vote.
IMO, if Sanders ran as an Independent, he would split the Democratic vote, and assure the GOP a victory in 2016.

Finally, one more "thing that would block her path" is something Jerry Brown himself said in that interview:
"When asked about the recent controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account as Secretary of State, Brown said he is not convinced the issue is a passing storm, as many other Democrats contend."

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
29. I may write in
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:20 PM
Mar 2015

Dennis Kucinich's name - as I did when Obama ran in the primary. I had to change my registration from "no party affiliation" to Democrat to do that but then changed it back.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
30. Oh, Here...Could Chris Van Hollen be a "Dark Horse Candidate"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:20 PM
Mar 2015

It's my post in "DU Populist Group" with the WIKI and Van Hollen's Parents Background:

If you are interested...will save you time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12775025

greenman3610

(3,947 posts)
19. Cuz there's not a dimes worth of difference between al gore and George bush.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:14 PM
Mar 2015

Right? I remember how that worked out. Do you?

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
96. NO GOD NO !!!!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:25 PM
Mar 2015

Sorry, as soon as I saw his name I freaked out. He may be a Cuomo but he ain't no Mario,

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
323. me too!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:50 AM
Mar 2015

It's so telling that he is at odds with NYC's first left-oriented mayor in many years.

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
26. Me, neither
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:18 PM
Mar 2015

Actually, I don't know of ANY Dem candidate who would put Israel in its place. As a voter not registered to any party affiliation, I may not even vote for president if the Dems cannot find a fair and decent one.

 

android fan

(214 posts)
27. A-fucking-men
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:19 PM
Mar 2015

You have firmly nailed down the exact reasons why I do not want Clinton.

Thank you for elaborating my thoughts, WilliamPitt.

The very fact that she is to the right of center scares the fuck out of me, and has already lost touch with the common people.

I think Bernie Sanders will be announcing very soon. He is the true champion of the people, and should handle the mantle.

But I will support ANY Democrat that is left of Clinton and left of center.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
31. Nor do I. But if she is, I will vote for her. I hope ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:20 PM
Mar 2015

you will as well. I agree with every point you made, and like you, I'm hoping for someone more progressive. But I am also damned near monomaniacal with regard to the SCOTUS. I fear that any lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters for the eventual Democratic candidate could allow us to once again get "Bushed" , and this time with catastrophic consequences for generations to come.

kratos00

(99 posts)
32. I will make it simple for you
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:21 PM
Mar 2015

Obama possesses many if not all of the same attributes that you correctly point out about HC but because he is president we have Sotomayor and Kagan sitting on the Supreme Court instead of two Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia types. Make no mistake, if a Republican is elected, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (unless she steps down soon) will be replaced with someone in the mold of the aforementioned "strict constructionists".

Do you hate Citizens United? Do you hate the fact that the court has ruled time and again against voting rights? The best chance we have of getting rulings that undo these spectacularly damaging rulings is for the next president to have a "D" next to their name, wether it's Hillary or Martin or Elizabeth or Mario or an "I" like Sanders.

Vote how you wish in the primaries but once the nominee is decided vote to get the court back, don't let Jeb or Walker be the ones picking the next two or maybe three supremos.

Is that good enough?

Response to kratos00 (Reply #32)

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
33. How can someone be so hated, despised and reviled...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:22 PM
Mar 2015

by the Republicans - each and every Republican to the person without exception - and be what you describe?

There is a real disconnect here.





Whiskeytide

(4,459 posts)
52. The Teapartiers hate her...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:39 PM
Mar 2015

... and I suspect most if them don't really have a well formed reason for it. They were told to hate her.

I don't think traditional Republicabs - the old guys in charge - really hate her.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
111. Nope. She's in the club.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:35 PM
Mar 2015

She's a corporatist, through and through and they would be very comfortable with her in the WH.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
124. She can beat any other Republican in the race (Clown) car. Can she beat a Progressive Populist
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:45 PM
Mar 2015

Democrat? I think NOT that is why her posse is so busy selling her "ubevibadility"

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
209. Fascinating reply.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:41 PM
Mar 2015

I imagine it's the same reason 'progressives' or 'populists' or whatever it is they're calling themselves this week hate her. Because she can win and keep their kids out of the club.

Welcome to politics.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
373. They hate Joe Manchin too.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:07 PM
Mar 2015

The disconnect is one where the GOP hate anybody ideologically their own wearing the wrong laundry as a disguise.

They'd hate Ronald Reagan himself if he held his exact same principles and infiltrated the Democratic party to destroy it from within.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
167. Nobody is running yet.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:44 PM
Mar 2015

Don't get too excited about discounting any candidate but Hillary, since she hasn't even announced she's running yet.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
371. Not sure which "he" you are referring to
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:04 PM
Mar 2015

It can't be me because I'm a she and a staunch Democrat.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
454. I see your "Space Reserved for O'Malley" thingy ...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:21 PM
Mar 2015

I feel compelled to caution you ... O'Malley is (may be) an Oligarchic plant candidate (per a thread from a prominent DU progressive voice)

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
35. Anyone got a link for where Hillary supported Keystone?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:23 PM
Mar 2015

You said she "acted fully like a Republican" on Keystone so obviously she must have strongly endorsed it at some point, however, I cannot seem to find a link. Can anyone help as I would like to read more about this?

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
43. She fully supports fracking. She refuses to answer on Keystone, tho the Clinton foundation
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:28 PM
Mar 2015

Got a big chunk of change from Keystone supporters

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
50. The Clintons have feathered their nest very nicely
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:36 PM
Mar 2015

thanks to their continuing advancement of the plutocratic agenda.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
101. So when someone makes a donation to a charity
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:28 PM
Mar 2015

that automatically means that the people who run the charity agree with the donor's political views?

Something of a novel theory, there.

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #101)

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
110. I'm pretty sure that if Hillary had ever endorsed Keystone someone would have posted a link by now.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:34 PM
Mar 2015

So I can only assume that she never has.

 

Veilex

(1,555 posts)
162. "if Hillary had ever endorsed Keystone" - Of course she endorced it... she oversaw the permit.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:38 PM
Mar 2015
Clinton has not weighed in on whether she supports Keystone, dodging questions on the issue previously, despite pressure from both Republicans to state her position as well as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to not only weigh in, but to oppose the pipeline. Clinton has said since she oversaw the permitting process for the project it would be inappropriate for her to state her position.


I'd say its pretty obvious what her position is: Do whatever it takes to garner as much money as possible, and avoid making any statements that might cost her corporate dollars.

In other words, she's following a tried and true republican tactic. One can easily and reasonably deduce that if a person is using republican tactics, and has sided with republican interests in the distant and recent past, then chances are quite high that person will do so in the future. If you think she'll be anti-keystone XL, I'd have to say, in the light of past actions, you should probably re-evaluate your thoughts on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/12/hillary-clinton-sidesteps-keystone-pipeline-in-speech-to-environmental-group/

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
295. But she was "inclined to approve it"
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:06 AM
Mar 2015
Hillary: "So as I say, we've not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons — going back to one of your original questions — we're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada."

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/Hillary-Clinton-On-The-Keystone-Xl-Pipeline.htm


And she has never been against it, or concerned that it threatens the water source of millions of Americans. Nor has she mentioned how it benefits the Koch Brothers.

Chemisse

(30,793 posts)
212. When it comes to politics, donations purchase a piece of that candidate.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:47 PM
Mar 2015

So if she received donations from them, she is in their debt, and she will vote in their favor.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
249. You haven't made the connection.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:08 AM
Mar 2015

Where is the sentence coming out of HER mouth that says she is a suppporter?

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
251. FFS she hired a Keystone-connected company to do
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:24 AM
Mar 2015

... the environmental impact report on Keystone as SOS. Obama took the approval process out of her hands when that came to light. Her actions speak volumes and are louder than words. She's knee deep in lobbyist connections. And Keystone donated a half million bucks to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. It doesn't take a genius to do the math on that, but the obtuse response from Clinton acolytes like yourself is as lame as it is disgusting.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
253. Links? Where did Obama say "I'm taking this out of your hands because I don't like
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:36 AM
Mar 2015

who you hired?"

Come off it. You're doing what we excoriate the other side for doing.

SECSTATES are required to do a lot of things that they don't personally like. It's called diplomacy. That was never HER decision. But I think you know that, though it doesn't suit your narrative.

Your accusations are as silly as suggesting that Madeleine Albright "liked" Kim of North Korea because she was photographed with him.



Response to MADem (Reply #253)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
255. Did you even read that? It doesn't say what you're claiming, at all.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:49 AM
Mar 2015

And it's written by someone with an ax to grind, and even they can't bring the falsehood home.

"Obama--NOT Hillary--will DECIDE!!" as if the decision was EVER in Clinton's hands. It was ALWAYS the PRESIDENT's decision--always.

Please. Your bias is apparent.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
263. I admire your reserve after your interlocutor advised you to perform a unnatural act on yourself.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:59 AM
Mar 2015

You sir or madame are a model of rectitude and empathy.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
264. Eh...by their words we shall know them, I always say.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:02 AM
Mar 2015

When I get called names, I figure I've prevailed. People who are on the winning side of an argument don't have a need to toss insults.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
265. I don't want any hides so I try to censor myself the best I can.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:12 AM
Mar 2015

I have been here for twelve years and that post made the top five of epithets. It's up there with the poster who told his interlocutor "he would punch him in the f--ing mouth."


WoW

MADem

(135,425 posts)
316. I have decided that I'm not going to let that kind of stuff bother me.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:35 AM
Mar 2015

Really, at the end of the day, we all own our words. They represent us.

Someone who has to get lowdown and rude to express an opinion, well, that's a reflection on them, not me.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
36. Where is your candidate? If I did not want Hillary I would present an alternate candidate and
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:23 PM
Mar 2015

Get their record on the table. Remaining an anti Hillary will elect a GOP.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
133. I love you hrmjustin
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:50 PM
Mar 2015

and usually, you are one of the most level-headed people on DU.

In this, I cannot agree with you. Anyone that gives the air that they are entitled to be President of the United States reminds me of George Bush - no self-reflection, no moral compass, just looking at the political optics.

I don't want someone that is more interested in political optics than they are in what is the morally right thing to do. I didn't forget 2001-2009, and I don't plan to ever forget what happened when we elected a leader that was so sure he was right that he was wrong.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
145. I love you too Aerows!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:00 PM
Mar 2015

I would never call myself level-headed. but you are sweet.

it will be an interesting primary.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
41. Nothing wrong with that, some here do like the idea of options.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:25 PM
Mar 2015

I just don't have a viable candidate name I can throw at you. I personally like Bernie Sanders. I think there should be a primary.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
42. But would you buy a used car from her?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:26 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)



As for me, I will vote so as as to defeat each and every Repub in every race. Every election.
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
60. They always asked that question about Nixon.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:47 PM
Mar 2015

And HRC's bald-faced opportunism is reminding me more and more of Nixon, who believed in absolutely nothing save for the advancement of one Richard M. Nixon by whatever means possible.

druidity33

(6,435 posts)
299. yes, but...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:56 AM
Mar 2015

only if there were a lemon law in that state and i'd done my due diligence (had a mechanic look at it)... and of course if the price were reasonable.



NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
44. I “live with her record” easily, because when you actually look at her record, it is a strong liberal one.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:29 PM
Mar 2015
It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.


We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.


  • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
  • Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
  • Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  • Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  • Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  • Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  • Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  • Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
  • Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  • Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
  • Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
  • Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
  • Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
  • Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
  • Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.


  • Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
  • Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  • Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  • Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
  • Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
  • Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
  • Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
  • Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)


Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.


If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.


She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”


  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  • Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  • Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  • Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  • Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)


  • Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
  • Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
  • Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
  • Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
  • Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)


Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.


I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.


VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is your candidate at the moment?

sheshe2

(83,324 posts)
72. Thank you NYC Liberal for some facts.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:58 PM
Mar 2015

Fact is, I like facts, not just talking points.

Bookmarking for reference.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
95. NYC Liberal wins the thread
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:23 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

for a worthy answer.

Thank you. It's going to take me a week to chew through this. I deeply appreciate the effort.

Still not convinced...but you answered in strength, and with data. A rare and wonderful thing these days.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
229. "Fought against electric rate cut" "Yes: criminalize flag burning" "Yes to wiretapping"
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:05 AM
Mar 2015

Read carefully, Will. There are some gems mixed in with the feel good statements and votes:

1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)

Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning. (Jan 2010)

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)

Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)


One day I'll sit down and pull them all out.

.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
234. Don't you remember the discussion about the flag burning business here on DU?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:56 AM
Mar 2015

Here's the truth--the GOP wanted an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION to make flag burning illegal.

Sensible heads in Congress thought "Well, that's fucking stupid" but the GOP dug in their heels and wanted to focus on this issue to the exclusion of all others. They voted for it more than once, and only lost out by one vote. They weren't done, though--they WANTED it.

A compromise was crafted so that these idiots could APPEAR to be tough on flag burning without having to actually go through the drama of trying to fuck with the Constitution in a post Nahn Wun Wun world.

The compromise consisted of the bill that Clinton wrote. What does this bill actually say? Why, it says you CANNOT BURN A FLAG ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

But, guess what? It's already against the law to start fires on federal property anyway--so the "effect" of the law sponsored by Clinton was "Same shit, different day."

She did the equivalent of shaking a rattle at a baby to distract them from the doctor's needle--and she stuck it to them. They patted themselves on the back for absolutely nothing.

That's called political smarts--but here, she gets dissed for it.

I've gotta say, if you want to read misrepresentations of Clinton's record, you don't have to go to Drudge or Newmax or any of those hate sites--there's plenty of that crap being shopped right here. It's rather embarrassing that our own team buys off on the bullshit without doing even a bit of research. Same shit, different day...lather, rinse, repeat. I'm getting a bit tired of it, to be frank.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
235. "onetheissues" is the source, and we are entering the primaries.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:01 AM
Mar 2015

This is the time to challenge frontrunners.

Post primaries its a different game.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
238. You know, I brought OTI to this board, years ago...but my point is that the flag burning gripe is a
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:11 AM
Mar 2015

big honking fake-out lie.

Unless you think that a Constitutional Amendment against flag-burning is a better idea?

Because that is where we were going, until HRC stopped it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
245. The context obviates the "accusation" that Clinton was somehow in the "Waaah!! No Flag Burning!!!"
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:02 AM
Mar 2015

camp, though.

Her actions with regard to this issue were to get those GOP dogs OFF that bone, so the Congress could do the work of the people instead of ragging on and on about Flag sanctity and assorted bullshit.

Instead, here on a Democratic board, where we pride ourselves on knowing better and being fact-based, she is "accused" (wrongfully) of being a tighty righty on this matter, when in actual fact, she was stringing the duncebag/teabag GOP crew along to get them off the topic.

glinda

(14,807 posts)
138. Nice info but many years ago. I don't hear her say anything good concerning the
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:52 PM
Mar 2015

environment that I can recall in the last two years. That concerns me.

blue neen

(12,306 posts)
175. Thank you for this fantastic post.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:56 PM
Mar 2015

This is exactly the kind of information we need so we can make educated decisions when the time comes.



If there are other serious potential candidates (perhaps O'Malley?), it would be very helpful to have the same type of info.

Again, thanks.

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
243. I think this older more traditional graph is more accurate and relevant
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:52 AM
Mar 2015

... when assessing candidates' corporatist leanings rather than having those masked by social issue labels amongst other things.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
289. Great--a Republican who is good on social issues. I want more than that from a Democrat
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:38 AM
Mar 2015

Nothing on the list about controlling banksters or reinstating Glass Steagall.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
305. WOW! - JUST WOW!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:10 AM
Mar 2015

See, this is why I read DU opinions and comments...most here are so smart and up to any challenge...I will also be sure to check out the website you provided...thank you

No wonder the republicans are trying to find anything that will stick to the wall...

Fiendish Thingy

(15,366 posts)
340. That Votematch graph distorts her record
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:59 PM
Mar 2015

To appear more liberal than she actually is. The Patriot Act item alone is off base. The rest are cherry picked items that make it appear she is left of center, and ignores the many issues and votes where she is right of center.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
351. Those graphs are worthless when used that way.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:09 PM
Mar 2015

Politicians regularly take popular stances on votes where winning is impossible. Maneuvering things into positions like that is a big part of what modern, national politics is all about. Nevermind the fact that things like the PATRIOT Act or the AUMF are just one more data point in a graph like that, and weigh the same as 'voted to extend UI benefits for six months'.

Pair that with the fact that they weigh economic/foreign policy issues the same as social issues (the Third Way types' sole left wing bonafides) and those charts are just laughable.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
47. We are on the same sheet of music.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:32 PM
Mar 2015

We may not be singing in tune, but we are far closer than many might imagine. One of the posts I made not long ago asked if Hillary could win without Union support. It was sparked by a release from the AFL-CIO warning Senator Wyden of Oregon that if he supported the TPP he would risk losing his bid for re-election.

The answers I got were predictable. Hillary will get support because the Unions hate Republicans. If so, why would they threaten a safely blue Senator from a reasonably reliably blue state that re-election is in danger if he supports TPP? Or assertions that all will be well on the day, no worries.

I am also troubled by her record. One of the things you didn't mention was Hillary's vote for Bankruptcy reform. If you don't recall, that is where she voted with the Republicans to make it nearly impossible for an individual to write off debt. Corporations could still write off debt including employee pensions, but individuals could not after this legislation. The theory the Republicans put forth was that this would reduce Credit Card Company losses so they could lower rates. Has anyone seen any lower rates?

So the law protecting corporations was protected, but the laws protecting individuals, not so much.

There are many other objections to Hillary. Objections that are even now starting to make themselves known. Alternatives are being desperately searched for.

Or, perhaps, Joe Biden. Former Obama campaign volunteer William Pierce organized and launched a super PAC called Draft Joe Biden this past week, with plans to hire state coordinators in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and the singular goal of persuading the vice president to get in the race.

"I'm a lifelong Clinton fan. But the thing is, this isn't a dynasty - it isn't a monarchy," Pierce said. "We need people outside of the great Clinton family to represent us."
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
448. Wyden is my Senator, I wrote to tell him that if he fast tracks the TPP I'll support a primary
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:02 PM
Mar 2015

challenger. That said, Wyden is not Hillary and this is the sort of post about her that bothers me. The subject is trade agreements, the target is Hillary but the material is all about Wyden and AFL-CIO. I've been in an AFL-CIO Union my entire adult life.
Hillary voted against CAFTA in the Senate. The bankruptcy 'reform' was championed exhaustively by Joe Biden, as well as by Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton.
"As many remember, not only did Senator Biden vote for the bankruptcy bill, but he was one of the bill's leading proponents when it came up for vote in a previous version in 2001. Biden ended up voting for all four versions of the bankruptcy bill, which finally passed as BAPCPA in 2005."
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/news/articles/celebrity/obama-and-biden-bankruptcy-differences.aspx

Biden is the VP, who also voted for IWR and the Patriot Act. It's just odd that the whole of it is hung on Hillary when Biden did much more to promote that crap over the years and supported every form of the bill to come to him.
But I always love rhetoric, so carry on.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
450. The reason nobody is mentioning Biden, or Dodd, or anyone else is the context.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:56 PM
Mar 2015

They are not reported as even considering the Presidency. Biden is tossed out now and then, but he's made no noise himself about it, and no one close to him as alluded to another run on the White House. Generally speaking, it seems as though he doesn't have the support to even consider it. The reasons why are really not germain, but let's agree that the context of this is the judgement and position of potential Presidential Candidate.

If the Unions, in this instance specifically the AFL-CIO are willing to threaten a Senator, what gain would they have in supporting a Presidential Candidate with the same position and an even worse history on trade issues that undeniably cost jobs? Let's look at it logically since we're going to agree that the Unions are run by people who are pretty damned smart.

It takes a two thirds majority to get such a treaty through the Senate. Right now, Republicans control the Senate. So taking the White House, and putting a politician there who is at best ambivalent to Union concerns is a minimal gain at best for the Union. On the other hand, taking those resources, money, manpower, and mailing lists and sinking them into a few vulnerable Senate Seats means that the Union can have a lot more influence in the Senate. If they can get the Democrats in control, then even the most anti-Union pro free trade Republican in the White House is powerless to significantly harm the Unions. The Democratically controlled and Union Friendly Senate would provide a powerful check to the aspirations of the kings of outsourcing. Thus the Unions would protect their members, and protect their positions. That is a far smarter use of limited resources than throwing everything at a single candidate who has a long history of supporting free trade that has cost more than a million jobs so far.

Now, if Biden were to throw his hat into the ring, which again, we have no indication that he will at this time, then his record would similarly be scrutinized by people. You don't have to be right all the time to be in Politics, but you have to recognize when you make mistakes, and move to correct those mistakes. Let's use Doctors as an example. The show House MD was popular, and in it House made mistake after mistake trying to diagnose a patient with some rare condition. At the end of almost every single episode, he found the right answer, and saved the life of the patient. That is how Doctors work. Most of the time they aren't certain that they are providing the right treatment, and they check to see if it is working. If not, they try something else.

NAFTA cost at least a million jobs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

It also helped drive wages down. It made it profitable for companies to spend billions in Mexico setting up factories and plants and then shipping the products to the US. Ford, GM, Toyota, and now Audi are but a fraction of the companies that moved high paying jobs out of the country.

Farm jobs lost. Skilled labor jobs, lost. So the wise wo/man who looks at this must admit that the free trade angle doesn't do what it was advertised as doing. They would examine the results and then withdraw any support for future agreements that would certainly have similar results. A child may touch the hot pot of water once in the process of of learning what hot is. If the child touches the pot several times, you have a problem that could be a learning disability. So what does that say about a politician who seems either reluctant, or unwilling to learn?

The job of President is about judgement, and about vision. The past is what gives us an idea of what the judgement of the person is like. Again, you don't have to be perfect, but you do have to be willing to admit you made a mistake. We're all humans, and we all are making mistakes. We know that, and we admit we made mistakes. If Hillary when confronted with the TPP situation, had said that she was uncomfortable with it, that would be one thing to consider. Then instead of a pattern of support for killing jobs, we would have a person who tried something, and found it didn't work. CAFTA aside, we don't have that. I always suspected that the argument against CAFTA had more to do with Bush being in the White House than opposition to unfair trade agreements.

I don't blame people for making an honest mistake. For taking actions they thought would turn out one way with the best of intentions. I do blame people for not learning from those mistakes. Because learning from our mistakes is supposed to be part of growing, and improving.

moonbeam23

(304 posts)
66. me neither
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:53 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Look who her "friends" are

"birds of a feather flock together"

Oops...didn't mean to reply to that post, but to the OP...OF COURSE i want a democratic candidate, just a better progressive one like WARREN

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
49. " She voted like a Republican on the Patriot Act and the war..."
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:36 PM
Mar 2015
The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98-1 with every Senate Democrat serving at the time voting for it, save Russ Feingold. Here's the roll call:


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313


It passed the House 357 -66.


59% of Senate Democrats voted for the IWR including John Kerry who you vigorously supported during the 04 primaries while many of us were supporting the anti-war candidates like Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Dennis Kucinich, and Bob Graham. Here's the roll call:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
359. Yes - clearly the entire Democratic Senate contingent is way off target.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:42 PM
Mar 2015

The best thing to do is to show them that voting that way WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

starroute

(12,977 posts)
51. I can't remember any time I voted holding my nose and my candidate won
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:37 PM
Mar 2015

The people who say, "If she's nominated, will you vote for her?" are assuming that she will be capable of beating the Republican candidate.

The current polls have her ahead of all of them -- but polls at this point go largely on name recognition. By next year at this time, the GOP will be putting all its money and momentum behind a single candidate, and meanwhile Hillary's every weakness will have been pounded into the dirt.

I don't believe at this point that she *can* win. And it's that, even more than her dismal record on any issue I care about, that fills me with gloom at the thought of a Hillary nomination.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
262. +1
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:53 AM
Mar 2015

I did not support Hillary in 2008 because of her Iraq War vote and because I didn't think she could win. Those reasons still hold.

Sancho

(9,065 posts)
56. I've been a hard core Democrat as long as you, and I disagree.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:41 PM
Mar 2015

Pulling the Reagan age and experience card won't fly with me. Hillary is not perfect, but let's see the platform and then decide on a primary candidate.

I met Nixon in the 60's when folks loved him and saw Democrats in the 70's who were convinced Carter was a closet military war monger. You really don't know what a President Hillary Clinton would be like. She has earned the right to run. After that, it is premature to act like a fortune teller.

Vote how you would like after we see the primary.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
63. What was Nixon like in person?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:50 PM
Mar 2015

I have met Al and Tipper and my mom took me to the front of a rope line in 1964 when I was six years old to shake RFK's hand when he was running for the U S Senate.

Sancho

(9,065 posts)
78. More personable than on TV to me.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:03 PM
Mar 2015

I met him in Charleston when he was vp At Mark Clark's retirement. He gave me an autograph (something we did in the 60's). Very confident.

Sancho

(9,065 posts)
89. It caused a family crisis, but I was all in for Carter
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:16 PM
Mar 2015

After surviving being A1 in the draft, watching my father as a Military MD after Korea, and seeing the fight for an 18 year old vote, I thougt Carter was terrific.

Even still, we were all fascinated by Watergate. Nixon was caught, but I'm sure The Bush's and others were as bad or worse.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
252. The most abhorrent politician I've ever come across was "charismatic" in person.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:31 AM
Mar 2015

Extremely so. I mean both: abhorrent and charismatic.

Charisma is the stock in trade of politicians. It doesn't attach itself to "good people" and not to "bad people", and in fact it has nothing to do with ethics.

You should know that, since you seem to be a professional politician from birth.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
261. I have met several politicians in my life...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:51 AM
Mar 2015

I have only spent quality time with two, actually one if you don't include campaign managers and the two others were failed House candidates.

Two out of the three were okay. The third was kind of imperious.



delrem

(9,688 posts)
267. So, how do you suppose that Hillary can court "the left"?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:29 AM
Mar 2015

We all know how well she's courting the "moderate Republican" type, and it seems that she's aiming to court "moderate Republican" women in particular.
Do you think there's enough of a possible vote swing, among "moderate Republican's", to pull it off without the left?

I'm Canadian, so I don't count. I *can't* be a Dem or Rep, so I don't factor in. But Canadians watch US politics, if we're aware of politics at all. It's forced on us by geography and demographics. So my personal experience might not count, in your opinion. But I was a strong "supporter" of Bill Clinton, believing him to be a breath of fresh air after the ridiculously violent warmongering Reagan, and I, a male, didn't "get it" when all the sleazy shit went down about Bill, whereas all the females in my family were of one opinion. They didn't like it and it was essential. They made me feel like an idiot - but they were right. The females in my family aren't right-wing. They are feminists and entrepreneurs. You might say: "that's Bill, not Hillary!" But it really isn't.

I think that kind of baggage might weigh even more among "moderate Republican" type women, than among the liberal/socialist/entrepreneurs in my family.

So I'm just sayin' that I don't think HRC has much chance of making inroads among "moderate Republican" women. And I'm asking you, how do you suppose that Hillary can court "the left"?


DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
268. It's 2:00 A M here so my thought process is slowed.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:46 AM
Mar 2015

IMHO, she will run on issues of interest to ordinary people like expanded health care, expanded paid leave, gender equity in compensation,protecting their retirement income, and raising the minimum wage, i.e., kitchen table issues.

She will win, imho, by reassembling Barack Obama's coalition of moderate and liberal white voters, Latinos, African Americans, and Asians. I don't know much about your nation's politics but our nation's politics are very demographically driven. If you know a person's race, ethnicity, location, et cetera. you can make an informed guess about he or she will vote.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
272. No guarantees in life but death , taxes and Adam Sandler making cheesy movies.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:56 AM
Mar 2015

I am just describing a program and path to a plurality or majority of votes for the Democratic nominee.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
274. I thought you wanted to engage me in conversation and not insult me.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:58 AM
Mar 2015

Please accept my apology for being incorrect.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
275. It was an honest question.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:05 AM
Mar 2015

You said that Hillary will win the office of President of the USA on "kitchen table issues", and not on her record as SoS, or her long term history.
You said that you could simply make up a fable about "kitchen table issues" and have people believe it, and it will win.

That's why I asked if you were a robot. Because nobody that I know of could fall for such a song and dance except, maybe, the Sarah Palin family.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
276. I never said she wouldn't run on her record.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:14 AM
Mar 2015

That being said, how is expanding health care, expanding paid leave, gender equity in compensation,protecting folks retirement income, and raising the minimum wage a fable?

These are issues of importance to the working and middle classes and have been a staple of Democratic politics since the New Deal.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
278. Yes, these buzzwords sure the fuck are going to be a "staple" of a "New Deal".
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:17 AM
Mar 2015

being promised by the third-way.
shudder.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
281. I am hurt that you continue to verbally assault me but I refuse to respond in kind.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:43 AM
Mar 2015

Whenever my interlocutor verbally assaults me over the internet I think to myself that at least he or she isn't verbally assaulting people in public where there is a possibility the person being verbally assaulted will respond in kind or worse... So being the empathetic person I am or like to think I am I am doing that person a favor.


I digress...

Expanded health care wasn't a fable to me when I fell and suffered a fracture of the proximal radius that rendered my right hand which is my favored one essentially useless...Because of the Affordable Care Act I was able to go to the ER to have it diagnosed and set, to the orthopedist for follow ups, and to physical therapy for rehabilitation. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, several months later, my elbow is as good as new.

Expanded health care was a fable to my father. He didn't have health care, hadn't had a physical in twenty years, and had a massive heart attack at the ripe old age of 58 that killed him. Thanks to the Affordable care Act I get regular check ups, and medicine for my hypertension. Hopefully I will avoid his fate.

With love and patience
DemocratSinceBirth



DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
322. No problem
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:50 AM
Mar 2015

It also gives me another opportunity to brag about the ACA. Prior to the expansion of the ACA single indigent adults were ineligible for Medicaid. As a result of the expansion states that opted in to the system could provide Medicaid to single indigent adults. This made medical care available to millions of the working poor and those without jobs.

Oh, not only did I get treatment and physical therapy for my broken elbow I got free transportation to get treatment and rehabilitation.

The Republicans want to destroy the ACA. I want to protect it, expand it, and iron out the wrinkles,

.

gregcrawford

(2,382 posts)
57. I'm with you one squillion percent...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:44 PM
Mar 2015

... but the game is rigged; she'll be the nominee, whaddya bet. Our only hope is that the popularity of people like my man, Bernie, and Liz Warren can force HRC to adopt more progressive positions on critical issues. That, and some LOUD coaxing from the likes of us. I think Al Gore or Howard Dean should consider taking another run at the brass ring. But anyone will have to sell some serious real estate in their souls to get anointed by the wizards behind the curtain. Just look at what the bastards did to Dean.

The Hillary fanatics don't appear to be doing their homework, and I've no doubt that some are paid trolls trying to browbeat dissenters into genuflecting before Her Eminence. Just don't try it with me, kids.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
71. I remember that Kucinich was your guy in 2004.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:57 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x213087

However, in the end the candidate turned out to be a guy who voted for the IWR, but pretty much all of us rallied around and supported him anyway.

It would not surprise me if the 2016 primaries follow a similar course.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
182. Some of us DO learn.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:08 PM
Mar 2015
Hope & Change was a good marketing slogan used by a relatively unknown without much of a track record.

Hillary has a record.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
423. Yes, indeed. Valid point!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:36 PM
Mar 2015

And there are no small jobs, and all that...but it does explain why most of us haven't seen him lately!

c588415

(285 posts)
80. Hillary is a centrist, and only a centrist will win in the General
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:06 PM
Mar 2015

Election. If not Hillary your choice then who? Hell, just imagine what would happen if the GOP take back the WhiteHouse. Under a GOP president, Obamacare would be destroyed, our economy would collapse, and our country would be pushed into another "war of choice".

It's time, It's Hillary time!

 

android fan

(214 posts)
122. She is nowhere near centrist right now...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:45 PM
Mar 2015

Sorry.

I view her right of Obama, and he's already right of center.

Wrong direction of where the Democratic Party is going.. needs to stop right here, and go back to FDR era.

Sanders would fit that mold that would closely resemble an FDR Democrat.

c588415

(285 posts)
181. Indeed, Sanders or Warren would fit, nevertheless, neither would win in
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:04 PM
Mar 2015

the General. I am just being realistic.

dflprincess

(28,057 posts)
204. We've been fed that tired line about only a centrist can win just so we'll
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:27 PM
Mar 2015

smile sickly and go with the centrist. So, in the end, Wall Street wins whoever gets elected.

Personally I think a Sanders or a Warren could win the snag is getting the message out but a huge grassroots effort might just overcome slick advertising.

mahina

(17,502 posts)
347. Martin O'Malley
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:42 PM
Mar 2015

DAVENPORT, Iowa — Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley stepped up hiscritique of Wall Street excesseshere Friday as he began his first swing through Iowa this year with a populist speech to an enthusiastic crowd of close to 300 people attending a Democratic dinner.

O’Malley, who is aggressively positioning himself as an alternative to presumed Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, said that his party “must not allow another Wall Street meltdown to bring down hard-working families.” In a speech broadcast live on C-SPAN, he called for tougher sanctions on banks that break the law and for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era measure that separated commercial and investment banking.

Many left-leaning Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), argue that the act’s repeal in 1999 under President Bill Clinton contributed to the 2008 global credit crisis. If O'Malley is to gain traction against Hillary Clinton, one key will be successfully courting Democrats who have been pining for Warren to run for president — something she has insisted she has no plans to do in 2016.

During O'Malley's appearance at the Scott County Democrats' “Red, White and Blue Dinner,” he offered a prescription for “making the dream true again” that includes raising the minimum wage, expanding Social Security benefits, making pre-kindergarten universally available and ensuring equal pay for women. “Sing it with me people,” O’Malley said. “When women succeed, America succeeds.”

The speech, which drew multiple standing ovations, both underscored O’Malley’s opportunities and the challenges in the nation’s first presidential nominating state, where early polls show Clinton with a commanding lead and O’Malley barely registering. In interviews afterward, many Democratic activists said they were only starting to learn about O’Malley.

“I haven’t really followed him all that closely, but I’m going to be looking at him a lot harder now,” said Ken Krayenhagen, a 56-year-old chiropractor who lives in Davenport. “I like a leader that’s inspiring.”

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/21/omalley-steps-up-wall-street-critique-in-swing-through-iowa/

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
206. We've been chasing the Republicans rightward for decades
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:35 PM
Mar 2015

Based on this logic. Studies have shown both Republican and Democratic congress people mistakenly think their districts are far more conservative than is actually the case. A populist message like Warren's could win, imo- because the one thing many Dems, Independents, and even republicans seem to agree on is that the system is not responsive to their needs.

Washington has no clue where the true "center" even is at this point. Liberal policies are incredibly popular, it's the label of liberal that's been successfully vilified.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
293. "Corporate-Friendly Democrats Mobilize to Drag Party Rightward" & ^ here's one now!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:47 AM
Mar 2015
Corporate-Friendly Democrats Mobilize to Drag Party Rightward
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/02/corporate-friendly-democrats-mobilize-drag-party-rightward

Afraid "a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections," factions within the Democratic Party more closely aligned with Wall Street and other corporate interests than with the progressive left are "gathering their forces to fight back against the 'Elizabeth Warren wing' of their party," The Hill reported Monday.

Framed as a fight between so-called "centrists" of the party and more progressive voices, exemplified by Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), journalist Kevin Cirilli describes how leaders of three corporate-friendly groups—the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN), and Third Way—are moving to steer the Democratic agenda away from issues like income inequality, the student debt crisis, and corporate tax breaks.

Warren has come out swinging on these issues. Just last week, Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) launched the Middle Class Prosperity Project with a Forum on Economic Challenges Facing the Middle Class in Washington, D.C.

"There have been deep structural changes in the economy, changes that have gone on for more than thirty years, changes that have kept hard-working middle class families from sharing in an improving economy," Warren said in her opening statement (pdf) at the forum, calling on Congress to close tax loopholes, raise the minimum wage, and cut student loan interest rates.

Of current economic struggles, Warren declared:

Now this didn’t need to happen. It happened partly because of deliberate choices made right here in Washington. The choice to tax assembly line workers and teachers at higher rates than billionaire hedge fund managers. The choice to cut support for higher education and leave students with massive debt. The choice to gut funding for infrastructure and basic science research that grows the economy and that saves lives—all while giving corporations fat tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. The choice to run this country for the rich and the powerful, instead of running it for hard-working people.

Following the forum, Campaign for America's Future analyst Isaiah Poole wondered: "Could this project, using Warren’s distinctive voice, help progressives present a bold alternative not only to destructive conservative policies but the Band-Aids and incremental measures of some mainstream Democrats?"

Such "barbed attacks" as Warren's have "thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach," Cirilli writes at The Hill. "But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda."
 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
83. I'm with you.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:07 PM
Mar 2015

But if she does wind up being the nominee, I'll most likely go vote for her in the general. It's a shame how often the choice comes down to "meh" or "oh gods please no."

DFW

(54,050 posts)
84. I want the Democratic nominee to be......
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:07 PM
Mar 2015

Someone who will win decisively against the "best (in their eyes)" Republican candidate they put up.

I still wish it would be Howard Dean, even though he said flat out to forget it. I could live with any of the others "under discussion," even though most of said discussion is being done by people other than the supposed candidates. There is one name Howard mentioned to me that hasn't even shown up in this thread. Good. I'm cool with letting a hundred flowers bloom.

The Democratic nomination is anything BUT a foregone conclusion at this point, which I think is a good thing. Acting as if it were is probably not constructive. I want to see Warren and Sanders stay in the Senate. I think their voices will be more unfettered there than in the Oval Office. I don't want them speaking for "all Americans." I want them to continue speaking for US. Few do it so fearlessly or so eloquently. Some of Obama's best words have come from him as a pre-presidential candidate and as a not-so-lame duck.

Finally, to both those who don't want Hillary as our nominee and those who want no one else: can we please put the obsessions on ice until we have some declared candidates and, preferably, a few debates behind us, and then some primaries on the horizon?

The Republicans can't wait for us to be at each others' throats over this. I'm all for keeping them from getting what they want for as long as possible.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
87. What do you think about This Candidate's Background?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:14 PM
Mar 2015

(I posted this on Will Pitt's Anti-Hillary Thread) And since you are "International" would like to know your view if you check out the Link. Our Small Business deals with International....and that's why I try to keep up...but, I'm not over there in Europe like you are ..so I do differing media:

If you could have an alternative to Hillary...would THIS GUY get your interest given his interesting background that fits with OUR TIMES.

-----------------

Could Chris Van Hollen be a "Dark Horse Candidate"

It's my post in "DU Populist Group" with the WIKI and Van Hollen's Parents Background:

If you are interested...will save you time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12775025

DFW

(54,050 posts)
102. I love his international background
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:29 PM
Mar 2015

I don't know much else about him, though. I read through most of your link, and was amused to see that he majored in Public Policy and got a law degree--mirrors my younger daughter, though my wife is a German citizen and a social worker--not exactly eligible for the CIA even if she had wanted (she would have gone back to the farm before she would have considered that).

I also don't know to what degree he inspires as a campaigner--an unfortunate must in our media-obsessed times. This is one field where O'Malley is faulted, though I haven't seen him speak. Unfair as it is, O'Malley performing lively Irish folk music along the campaign trail would be a huge draw for him.

Van Hollen could indeed be a possibility, though he'd have to give up all thoughts of Mikulski's Senate seat if he did. His background DOES, as you say, fit with our times. So did Al Gore's 15 years ago, so it's not a lock.

 

android fan

(214 posts)
130. I think Van Hollden would be a good candidate, TBH
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:49 PM
Mar 2015

I have always admired his work, and was really fascinated about his background.

Thanks for something to mull over.... He just might fit the profile that we might need for a President.

Donna Edwards sounds like the best fit for the MD Senate...

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
144. Thanks...that's what struck me as so important for "These Times of Endless War/Engagements"...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:59 PM
Mar 2015

Another Candidate, Donna Edwards, (very favored by the Left) would be vying for the Maryland Senate Seat with Van Hollen and there is fear the vote would split over Van Hollen and Edwards and allow a Repub to gain the seat.

I don't know Maryland Law...but, given the uncertainty (split in Dem Party over Hillary bypassing Primaries) about Hillary's run with more scandal popping up...maybe Van Hollen could run for his House Seat again (giving up Senate for two years) and leave himself open as Candidate if all else fails with the Dem Slate at this point?

That was the strategy that I saw. We Dems definitely need a "Fall Back" who could come in at last minute with Great Credentials if the "Worse Comes to Worse." That was my train of thought.

BTW...what I've seen of Van Hollen ....he is not a charismatic speaker....but, then we've had charismatic and maybe it's time for a change. He's a bit on the "calming side." Maybe too much so... but his Background is Fascinating and Super Qualified given our ongoing International Interventions and I don't favor Hillary because she seems to me to be a War Hawk. I'd like to see us tone that down.

Anyway...desperately thinking and going through possible Dem Candidates who aren't even being considered I came up with him because I worry so much that we need a Back Up to Hillary....if there's no Primary and she falters in someway...health, scandal, etc.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
433. Koko, Van Hollen is another Third Way snake
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015

Google his support for cutting SS & Medicare. No more Third Way 's.

DFW

(54,050 posts)
107. Ah, Peggy, don't jump the gun
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:32 PM
Mar 2015

There will be plenty of people on here to dump on me from both sides, just wait.

In the old days, that used to mean one might have a point. These days, it just means that the majority thinks I'm full of it, just for differing reasons!

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
159. Why do you think those like Bill Kristol is so desparate to keep Hillary out of the General Election
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:34 PM
Mar 2015

They don't have anyone who can beat her. We do have a lot here who is working hard to help the Republicans.

DFW

(54,050 posts)
240. Not just Kristol on the right
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:38 AM
Mar 2015

Plenty on the left, too. There is no doubt that Hillary CAN win. But she needs to do some diligent work and make some important decisions if she wants it, and even then she'll have one hell of a fight on her hands. If we have a repeat of the results of 2000, the Republicans will steal it again, and they are much better at it now than they were 15 years ago.

As you can see in this thread, she will also have to do some work to distance herself from the Republicans. I am not one who thinks she is anything like them, but she will still have to distance herself from some whom she might perceive as essential to the success of her candidacy. That also applies to personal relationships with those in her campaign. That helped sink her in the 2008 primaries, so if she hasn't figured it out this time, she might as well not run at all.

If she runs and keeps Howard in her camp, it's a step in the right direction in two ways. Howard can help keep her positions leaning leftward, and he won't have any personal allegiance to anyone who might be detrimental to her campaign. He will also bail if she gives the impression that she prefers to go in another direction. There is plenty of time for the "un-Hillary" to step up and claim the nomination and smash any Republican candidate. There is also time for Hillary to do it herself. As long as our candidate espouses positions I agree with, and does eloquently and forcefully, and then amasses a staff that indicates they are sincere about those positions, I'm cool with supporting that candidate in the general election, because one thing is for sure--the positions embraced by ANY Republican will be abhorrent.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
326. As far as "distancing" from the republicans is really a TP theory,
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:28 AM
Mar 2015

They want to say if one talks to liberals then they are diseased and should be defeated in the next election. Of course both parties needs to work together if not we are doomed to a life of gridlock we are living today.

Let me ask you, did you know Hillary and Warren is rated the same on the chart involving issues? It is well on the left, not as far as Bernie which is too far to win in the general election. I read many post about Hillary but sometimes we need to see what a candidate stands on the issues. When I start doing research on a possible candidate I search for their stand on the issues.

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,297 posts)
90. Welcome to DU, Fritz Walter!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:17 PM
Mar 2015

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I always look for WilliamPitt's posts; he is a terrific writer.

 

The Jungle 1

(4,552 posts)
92. Line jumper
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:18 PM
Mar 2015

I don't want another Clinton either. They did great work for our country and continue to do great work world wide. However there absolutely are other Americans who can fill this position.

We need another line jumper. Obama butted right in line and now we need another line butter. We need someone to jam their shoulders in the crowd and push forward.

Please Liz.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
94. ok and
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:20 PM
Mar 2015

Ok and the best part of this thread is......tell us who will replace her? If she runs, who will run against her in the primaries and yes please say Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, because.......sorry, Ms. Warren IS NOT RUNNING, and Mr. Sanders is an independent and no way an independent will win.....so oh great ones on DU, tell us your nominee.....

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
154. Most of them scream about Sanders being a "socialist"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:22 PM
Mar 2015

So you can add that to the list of ridiculous arguments made.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
425. Not arguing against you
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:56 PM
Mar 2015

I'm agreeing with you and telling you one of the arguments I've heard on DU.

Sick_of_TP

(21 posts)
97. Would you rather have a Rep. pres.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:25 PM
Mar 2015

That's what will happen if you don't vote for HRC.
She will get the big money.
Hopefully she'll also get most women voters.
Moderates and independents will probably vote for her.

As much as I love Bernie and Lizzy they will not get the funding. Besides, they are needed to fight the GOP controlled congress.

Hillary will get my vote no questions asked because I don't want anybody on the other side!!!!

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
99. "no questions asked"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:27 PM
Mar 2015

Thanks for making the problem crystal clear.

"No questions asked" is what the other side does.

So...?

 

lobodons

(1,290 posts)
98. I do not want ANY GOP to be President
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:27 PM
Mar 2015

I will vote for ANY DEM on the ticket.

The thought of a 6-3 or 7-2 GOP SCOTUS trumps any other issue.

Flatpicker

(894 posts)
112. Neither do I
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:35 PM
Mar 2015
Explain how we can't do better if we actually try.


Explain how we can get someone to run who doesn't want to?

Explain how using the system we have in place, we can choose a candidate who chooses to not place their name into the running?

If we have to take 3 components into account, I would look at them in this way:
A.reflects my values, B.is willing to be put forward, C.and has a reasonable chance of winning.

Sanders may be A&B, but not C.
Warren may be A&C, but not B.
Biden may be B&C, but not 100% of A. (maybe 80%)
Clinton is B&C, but only 60% of A.

I hate this, but if politics is compromise, then I have to go with the compromise that is least odious to me.
 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
114. You WERE a Democrat in good standing
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:37 PM
Mar 2015

These days, the only good Democrats are the old docile ones.

New Democrats and older thoughtful progressives want to see a more enlightened government, and we are kind of pissed that the Democrats are foisting this lady onto us when just about everyone recognizes that the corporate narrative is hurting the planet along with the people.

We really deserve something better than someone who's most useful credential is that she can beat the craziest Republicans.

A sensible high school student can do that.

We don't need Hillary Clinton.

We need a progressive leader who wants to do it right. If our Party is unable to craft a message showing that a smart capable progressive nation is better than Republican Crazy World (have you seen these guys?), regardless of who the smart capable candidate might be, then the Democratic Party is failing on purpose.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
116. Hateful Negative HRC attacks
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:39 PM
Mar 2015

only serve nobody but the GOP goals since HRC has no primary opponents.......... Funny yall haters have nothing positive to say about any other progressives' attributes who is running,,,,,, oh that's right ,,there is nobody else running in the primary. You know, there may be a good reason for that? If you are only going to support the party when your candidate is running/winning you are not a democrat in my book.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
166. You (and other Clinton supporters) are using a strawman to attack anyone who criticizes Clinton
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:42 PM
Mar 2015

What is "hateful negative attacks"?

(keep in mind these are EXAMPLES)

Example:

Hillary Clinton is bitch
yes

Hillary is too conservative
no

Hillary Clinton wears pants suits because she acts like a man
yes

Hillary Clinton is not the type of person we need as president
no

The only reason Hillary Clinton would get elected is her husband
yes

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton's based on her past record
no

That is the problem, most Hillary Clinton supporters can't separate HATE from CRITICISM. In my opinion this is part of the problem with most (not all) Clinton supporters, is making claims about those who don't support her that are NOT true.

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
244. Disagree on "The only reason Hillary Clinton would get elected is her husband"
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:59 AM
Mar 2015

I don't understand why this is hateful? She didn't emerge from politics as a self-made woman. I am comfortable asserting we would not know anything about her if it wasn't for Bill Clinton, someone she has no problem name dropping 24/7.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
260. Well, ok maybe not hateful but a bit mean
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:46 AM
Mar 2015

I'm trying to see it from a balanced point of view. Again these are examples.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
266. She was a middle class kid who grew up to graduate from the most prestigious law school
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:26 AM
Mar 2015

She was a middle class kid who grew up to graduate from the most prestigious law school in the nation... That demonstrates she had some intellectual chops. It's safe to say she wasn't going to end up homeless...


As for her name being an asset the same can be said for the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, and Adamses.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
312. Three points.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:24 AM
Mar 2015

1) I didn't accuse you of being hateful.
2) It took a lot of hard work to graduate from our nation's most prestigious law school.
3) Lots of folks in all walks of life benefit from being related to someone famous but not all of them have accomplished anything. Secretary of State Clinton has accomplished a lot.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
119. Sorry. Our party has decided that primaries suck.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:43 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

Remember in 2008, after Hillary drew out the primaries long after she had no mathematical chance of winning? Remember all that talk about how great the extended primary was for Obama and for the entire Democratic Party? Yeah, I remember too. Apparently, they were pulling our collective leg.

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
121. Delighted to know that...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:44 PM
Mar 2015

...and apparently it's someone else's job to get a candidate you will support?

Unlike the millions of people who've pledged in advance to support Hillary Clinton, I'm not seeing any effort here to organize support for an alternative.

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

 

Elmer S. E. Dump

(5,751 posts)
134. I do not hate Hillary Clinton.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:51 PM
Mar 2015

I'm afraid she has too much baggage, regardless. I wish we could convince EAW to run. She could be our savior.

OregonBlue

(7,744 posts)
135. This is just a replay of 2008. Didn't you say the same things then? Didn't the people who are
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:51 PM
Mar 2015

agreeing with you say the same things then. I'm not set on Hillary because I am a Yellow Dog Dem but I really hate it when the board gets so split and so nasty. Can we please not bash Dems? It's one thing to state an opinion, it's another to attack them. I'm not saying that's what you are doing but it escalates here so quickly.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
139. OK. Pitch someone else, Will.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:52 PM
Mar 2015

Tell us who you support, but make sure it's someone who will run and has a genuine chance to win. Let's hear about your candidate. I'll be voting for the Democrat, so tell us exactly who it should be. I don't pick presidential candidates. I just vote for them in November. I'm busy with state and federal legislative races, where my efforts help choose the candidates.

So, tell us who you want to be the candidate, not who you don't want. I'm listening.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
227. You would be wrong. I have voted straight democratic ticket for 19 years but not anymore.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:47 PM
Mar 2015

I am done. I am no longer a Democrat. I am now an Independent. From now on Democrats will have to earn my vote.

sellitman

(11,596 posts)
296. A wanna be Nader voter
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:22 AM
Mar 2015

Just as bad. If I have to explain to you why that is not in your best interests just look on the Supreme Court and see what happened when Bush stole the election.

Heck, look what just happened in the Senate.

Take your ball and go home and pout. The game will go on.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
377. I am loving this. You people are hilarious. You don't really believe that bullying people on the
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:13 PM
Mar 2015

internet will change peoples' votes do you?

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
459. I second that sentiment.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:37 PM
Mar 2015

Mewling acquiescence to pro-corporate planks in the Democratic platform got us much, much, much farther into this mess than a few Nader supporters voting their conscience.

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
195. Funny how Elizabeth Warren doesn't feel that way...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:48 PM
Mar 2015

She's happy to be in the same Party as Hillary Clinton and to encourage her to run.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
148. until the left stops ignoring the right's best weapon she's what dems get
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:06 PM
Mar 2015

she's a product of american politics the last 25 years and it's been dominated by rw radio while the left, it's orgs, and the democratic party continued the biggest political mistake in history.

until the left stops ignoring rw radio it's plain stupid to expect the best people to run and win.

the left and the dem party is insane- doing the same shit - ignoring rw radio- and expecting different results.

we got lucky with obama but we've lost 6 years because we ignored republican radio

cyberspirit

(67 posts)
149. Really?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:12 PM
Mar 2015

Well, good sit it out, vote for a third candidate and give the brain challenged Republicans more power. You may not agree with what you think she stands for these days, but she is the most experienced and competent person to be President. Until you actually vote and make it count, and get congress back, it won't matter what you think. You'll just be trying to survive the Republican destruction of this country. I almost blame progressives who didn't vote in primaries because of whatever discontent they were experiencing more than the Republicans. I think you waiting and listening is a good idea.

 

dirtydickcheney

(242 posts)
152. I DO think she'd be a great nominee.... for the REPUBLICAN Party.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:19 PM
Mar 2015

With that the Republicans could get a true right-winger, the Hillarybots get to vote for their candidate.


And the real Left can find someone that more adheres to their vision. Hillary unfortunately, certainly isn't that person.

Thespian2

(2,741 posts)
153. K & R
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:22 PM
Mar 2015

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I do not know why anyone would want her as a candidate. From her days of working to get Barry Goldwater elected onward, she has shown herself to be a true Republican.

Thank you for posting.

 

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)
169. We're force fed rotten candidates that make false claims to get our votes, then turn around and
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:49 PM
Mar 2015

compromise everything away to the Traitors in the GOP. And all that is really accomplished is that it destroys our brand and pushes away the Independents, and gets real Republicans elected. And that's just what the Third Way/"New" Democrats want, apparently...


Not Ready For Hillary 2016

KauaiK

(544 posts)
172. I don't like Hillary either BUT
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:53 PM
Mar 2015

I will vote for her over Jeb or any of the current crop of GOP imbeciles currently looking for favor from of Sheldon Adleson or the Koch Bros.

When Geo W. Bush was elected the tune was how bad can he be? There are checks and balances in place. HAH! Two disastrous wars, Katrina and take a gander at the current (joke of a) Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
180. Aw, Will, why?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:01 PM
Mar 2015

You just stepped in the donkey shit that the rest of us non-third wayers are well aware of, but you know, we don't talk about it. It's just going to turn into a slugfest and somebody or somebodies are going to get pissed and leave. I was really hoping we could avoid the primary pissing contests until after March. March is a bad time of year on most boards.

I agree, I agree, I agree, and short of something bigger than emailgate, we will be calling her Madame President next year. I wish we could actually have reasonable discussions about alternatives, but I don't think this is the board where that happens anymore. Sorry. I just hope she won't be any more egregious than our current President and keep things from completely going off the rails until we can get someone great, like Elizabeth Warren in there, to clean up the donkey shit.

We can do better, Will, of course, but we won't. And I can only speak for myself, but after putting my heart and soul into Obama, his betrayal of himself was just too much. I'm tired. About the best I can do is try to keep another Bush out of the White House and point and laugh at the antics of the other side. We do the same things too, but it's just embarrassing when we do.

She is Third Way and while the few who even know what that means wholly disagree with her nomination on that basis alone, well, see the first part of the sentence. There aren't enough of us who dislike her enough to fight her. That is, in a nutshell, why she will be the next President, not based on merit, but because we are worn out. First from the insanity of the Bush administration and then by the Obama administration. It's certainly not a meritorious reason by any stretch.

You mentioned that this is a bad idea we will come to regret. I already regret it.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,110 posts)
188. lol WP, you eee-villl Hillary hater! That's what I've been called 4 espousin the same views. Welcome 2 a not so exclusive club!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:32 PM
Mar 2015

WHEN CRABS ROAR

(3,813 posts)
190. Like I have said before
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:37 PM
Mar 2015

It is time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
192. HRC's corporate donors WILL call in their quid pro quos on SCOTUS appointments.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:46 PM
Mar 2015

HRC's supporters on DU seem to believe their strongest argument for her candidacy is:

Oh!, Oh! But what about SCOTUS?

To them I say, Get Real!

It is precisely because SCOTUS appointments are so important that all of the quid pro quos purchased via millions and millions in corporate & Wall Street sponsorship for her speeches and the millions and millions of "donations" cough/bribes/cough to the boutique Clinton Family Foundation by aforesaid corporations and foreign countries, will be called in when it comes to SCOTUS appointments.

No way in hell would these power houses stand for HRC appointing any Justice who might agree to reverse SCOTUS's rulings in:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana (2012). U.S. Supreme Court summary reversal of a decision by the Montana Supreme Court holding that Citizens United did not preclude a Montana state law prohibiting corporate spending in elections.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
285. Please tell me how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted on the cases you cited?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:03 AM
Mar 2015

Thank you in advance.

mike_c

(36,213 posts)
193. I'd respond "anyone but Hillary..."
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:46 PM
Mar 2015

...but my standards aren't actually that low. But still. I will never ever ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever.

 

V0ltairesGh0st

(306 posts)
194. Who DO you support then ?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:47 PM
Mar 2015

Ok...so you don't like Hillary ... we get that .... So the obvious question is Who Do you support?

I think it's only fair if your going to come on here and rant about someone you don't want to vote for is to then state who you feel is a viable alternative, and why ? This kind of griping you are doing is not in any way constructive, as a matter of fact you are only pushing those who feel voting is useless, and that nothing they do matters further away from voting at all. Were you on here ranting about who not to vote for in the Mid-Terms ? The Democratic party needs every voter it can to get behind the most liberally minded and progressive candidate it can. I'm not saying Hillary is on my list of favorites, but if she ends up as the nominee I will vote for her end of story.

Here are is the list of potential candidates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 for the democratic nomination. Some of them, not running, as they have told us time and again. So in an effort to actually be constructive I suggest forgetting about who you already know you don't like spewing all kinds of negativity about them, and PICK SOMEONE YOU DO LIKE.

I am sick to death of all the bloody cynics, and the two bit guffawing making the DU front page without actually suggesting any critical feedback on what , they or anyone else might do , to make things work instead of complaining about how they don't work. I admit that I'm undecided at this time and hate saying it, but the 2016 Dem primary ballot is looking pretty unstable other than Hillary.

I had the thought this op might even be a James O'Keeffe like troll, with their online assurance of what a good democrat they are but doing nothing but complaining and sewing discontent...sounds like something O'Keeffe and his crones would do, but i digress. So moral of the story, unless we want a another 2014 like disaster of an election, time to get behind somebody and give us critical reasons why.

sheshe2

(83,324 posts)
208. OMG!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:38 PM
Mar 2015

Thank you. Well said, V0ltairesGh0st.

I think it's only fair if your going to come on here and rant about someone you don't want to vote for is to then state who you feel is a viable alternative, and why ? This kind of griping you are doing is not in any way constructive, as a matter of fact you are only pushing those who feel voting is useless, and that nothing they do matters further away from voting at all. Were you on here ranting about who not to vote for in the Mid-Terms ? The Democratic party needs every voter it can to get behind the most liberally minded and progressive candidate it can. I'm not saying Hillary is on my list of favorites, but if she ends up as the nominee I will vote for her end of story.


Bravo!

tavernier

(12,322 posts)
201. I usually agree with you.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:03 PM
Mar 2015

This time we part ways.

I have a great deal of respect for this candidate who has shown more personal caring and integrity and just simple hard nose to the grindstone than any other human. Even her opposing senators respect her work ethic.

I think she learns quickly from her mistakes. I sense she is pretty smart.

She will have to override Monica, Bill,
O'Reilly, Faux News, et al.

But in the end, she may not win because we wish for someone purer and stronger and more ... More.

And then we will have Jeb Bush.

Congratulations to us.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
215. No I don't think it will be Bush
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:51 PM
Mar 2015

When the teahadists see that democrats are clearing the way for them to win the presidency, I think they will elect the most radical bagger they can get.

I mean, who cares when they don't have to try to appear like they give a shit about average Americans thanks to the purists in the democratic party doing the heavy lifting for them? They will go for the worse fascist they can find so the batshit insane religious fanatics stay fully on board.

I think it will be President Walker or Cruz leading the bagger Congress and SCOTUS to final victory over and destruction of, social security, gay rights, medicare, SSI, all environmental laws and the EPA, all gun laws, privatizing all schools, all prisons, outlawing unions, etc, etc.

Get ready for endless war as soon as the scumball takes office and I mean all out dropping nukes on Iran kinda war YEEHAWW!

They couldn't do it without your help, purists. I hope you are happy with your freeper religious fascist masters! The koch bros love you all for doing it!

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
344. I'm on record predicting Cruz winning GOP nom. Although I think Walker is also a possibility.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:26 PM
Mar 2015

Whoever wins is going to carry a number of senators and congressmen in on their coattails. I'm hoping that is Hillary and we win back the senate.

But it could be Cruz and they could get closer to 60 senators.

My prediction of Cruz winning the GOP nomination was based on what I perceive to be the tenor of the GOP base. In their minds, they are sick of "settling" for the establishment GOP candidate, as they viewed McCain and Romney, and they want a "true" Conservative. Cruz has been setting himself up as that lone true conservative for years, throwing the rest of the GOP under the bus as he does it as I said on Hannity who I think is a fan of Cruz (and thus didn't like it):



This has been a calculated move by Cruz all along and I think its going to work to get the nomination at least. And then, like you said, if we nominate someone who is weaker than Hillary or we weaken Hillary by these persistent ridiculous attacks, we will get Cruz with a strong Republican majority in congress, and if you want to see some damage being done, watch what happens then.
 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
386. I agree
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:59 PM
Mar 2015

And God help the poor, old, disabled, non-white, non-rich, gay or female if that insane Canadian bastard Cruz gets in the oval office or that nazi Walker!

There will be hell to pay with either one of those creeps and a rubber stamp republican controlled Congress.

Its so illustrative of the complete hypocrisy and racism of the right wing in this country that they have no problem with a Canadian citizen by birth, born in Calgary, Canada running for President, but a black man born in Hawaii they fought 24/7 from day one as illegitimate and not eligible for the office because he was "not born" in America!

Fuckin lying...RACIST... pricks!

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
222. Fair enough... Explain how a Bernie Sanders wins a national election.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:25 PM
Mar 2015

...particularly in Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin...

Last time I checked, they still allow Republicans and Independents to vote.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
226. ATM, I DO think she has the best chance in the general....
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:46 PM
Mar 2015

and that DOES influence my decision to vote for her.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my assessment of her chances, but I think the ability to win the general is a very important factor.

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
221. The only thing worse would be a TeaBagger for potus.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:24 PM
Mar 2015

Don't you think? Especially if Hillary is the best thing Democrats have to vote on.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
232. I havent made up my mind. I realize it's an unpopular position but
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:15 AM
Mar 2015

I'd like to see an actual slate of announced candidates and hear what they have to say about actual issues, before committing any particular way about anyone.

Hillary may end up being the nominee. However, the people acting like she already is are gettting ahead of themselves.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
237. Why are we comparing her to republican candidates?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:08 AM
Mar 2015

She hasn't even been nominated yet. Maybe she won't be and all this speculation will be wasted.

What we should be doing at this point is comparing what we know about her to what we want in a candidate. And I haven't yet seen nor heard anything that would make me want to vote for her in a Democratic primary.

In a general election? It's really too soon to say, but I live in a reliably Democratic state and we don't have direct presidential elections, so my options are vote for the Dem Candidate or sit this one out.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
250. Why not?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:14 AM
Mar 2015

She is about as far to the right on the political spectrum as any Democratic candidate we've ever had before.
Who else do you want to compare her to in the Democratic party?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
310. Really?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:18 AM
Mar 2015




HILLARY CLINTON
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm






ELIZABETH WARREN
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm







Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.


-John Adams


Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
406. Did you see the cover of this week's Time magazine?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:13 PM
Mar 2015

If you want to debate the merits of Hillary vs Warren, go ahead.

Warren didn't vote for the Iraq War.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
408. Obviously, you haven't seen this week's Time magazine.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:18 PM
Mar 2015

Maybe the article in this week's magazine will shed some light on the subject for you.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
409. They are clairvoyants.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:21 PM
Mar 2015

If they give me the Poweball numbers and I win I will buy the magazine...


Didn't Newsweek sell for $1.00 and debt assumption before they closed their doors forever?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
412. You suggested Time magazine knew how a senator would vote on an issue...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:59 PM
Mar 2015

You suggested Time magazine knows how a senator would have voted on an issue when she was a professor at the time.

If you believe that doesn't speak to the powers of clairvoyance there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
415. Don't get personal about it.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:04 PM
Mar 2015

If you haven't seen this week's cover of Time magazine, just admit it.

If you have seen the cover, then make your case that their cover story is wrong.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
417. I didn't get personal...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:13 PM
Mar 2015

I went to time.com and this is the cover that I see...




I posted some charts that demonstrated Ms. Clinton and Ms. Warren were identical when it comes to the issues...


You then said Ms. Warren didn't vote for the IWR and I replied that she wasn't in the Senate at the time so we will never how she would have voted...


You then referred me to Time as they would know how Ms. Warren would have voted for an issue before the Senate when she was a professor. I replied they only way they would know that is if they were clairvoyants or post hoc mindreaders.


Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
419. That is not the issue that is on the newstands this week.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:23 PM
Mar 2015

So, I know you didn't read the cover story.
Fine.

If Warren is as liberal as your chart shows, then she should be the nominee.
Since you say that Hillary is such a great liberal.

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
257. That's how it is now
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:56 AM
Mar 2015

Individual thinking is being crushed by party bosses who are picking and choosing the elitists that we are to vote for. And these choices are largely based on money, corruption, and power. And the party will control them and their agenda even while in office.

It's become a giant puppet show.

And now there is all this talk in some circles about that it should be mandatory to vote? So what's the punishment going to be for not voting between two corrupt candidates? Unless you vote for one of the two, the cops will show up at your door, beat you up, and throw you in prison while telling you its for your own good?

senseandsensibility

(16,712 posts)
256. Nor do I. It is powerful to state that here. However...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:54 AM
Mar 2015

If TPTB want her, history shows that she will be next "prez". Of course, TPTB will own both candidates. Here on DU, her defenders simply state that she is inevitable. No pretense that she is the best, even here. Elsewhere, she will be ripped to shreds, both fairly and unfairly.

emsimon33

(3,128 posts)
258. Wrong on Syria! So many Democratic activists agree
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:16 AM
Mar 2015

I have volunteered for the Democratic Party since I was 9 years old! I have phone banked, canvassed, paid my own way to other states to volunteer. I WILL NOT DO SO for Hillary Clinton and I am a woman of that certain age.

But just as the Republican Party was forsaken its roots, so the Democratic candidates, such as the Third Wayers and neo-liberals, have deserted us.

Both Clintons have sided with the wrong side time and again. What the Beltway Democrats don't understand is that Wall Street and other big money donors can only carry them so far. Without feet on the street, feet connected to passionate Democrats, they can't win.

Obama never gave credit to Howard Dean or to the 1000s of committed people who, on their own dime, traveled around the country to volunteer where most needed in order to get him elected. Instead, he sells us out with TPP and other "trade" agreements, placing Monsanto and financial institution former lobbyists and executives in positions of power over the very government agencies that regulate the industries that they just left.

I could go on for pages, but many, many of the base are fed up. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON! Not even if the Republicans run Satan! I shall work for progressive local, state, and congressional candidates instead.

By the way, all the Republicans need to do to win is to run a candidate with a history of supporting working class and elderly Americans and they will win. Perhaps, Jim Webb would be willing to run as a Republican. If he did so, Hillary would be eating his dust come election day.

raven mad

(4,940 posts)
269. If forced by my Democratic Party to accept her as nominee, I will.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:50 AM
Mar 2015

And I will, very very very reluctantly (for the first time in my 61 years) cast my vote under protest.

Agreed, WilliamPitt.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
277. That's your prerogative. Your vote is your own.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:15 AM
Mar 2015

I admit to wondering why you spend so much time on DU arguing against her, though.

I'll personally be voting for her if she runs.

LynneSin

(95,337 posts)
287. We've been down this path before with these same exact posts in 2007 and I ask you this...
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:14 AM
Mar 2015

How'd that work out back then?

I am still not on board with ANY democratic candidate but I also know, after enjoying the fruits & labor of the lovely Tom Cotton of Arkansas these past few months, that there is absolutely NO WAY IN HELL that I would also cast any vote in a general election for anyone that could stick us with someone like that for 4 years in the White House.

Because I have this question for you.

You think Mark Pryor was so awfully bad we had to get rid of him for Tom Cotton? And I will be the first to say this - I couldn't stand Mark Pryor, he made Joe Manchin there in West Virginia look like a raging liberal democrat and that's saying alot!

I truly believe in the Primary system and I look forward to some amazing debates not just by our democratic candidates but by DUers here on the boards. At some point I will make an alliance to one of them but after 2008, I'm just as fine leaving an open mind until the picture gets clearer (2008 I was on team Biden as always). But in the end I support the democrat in general election and I call that the democrat because at this point I have no clue who that person is and I'm fucking sick and tired of everyone here ASSUMING it is Hillary just like they did in 2007.

BTW I also believe that candidates can change their mind. I know many candidates back in the early 2000s came out against marriage equality who have since said 'I'm wrong'. So if you are going to give me reasons from votes back in 2002 as to not vote for someone, not working for me either since there are people I have voted for today who have expressed regrets on that vote. Just saying.

anniebelle

(899 posts)
288. The alternative really scares me.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:29 AM
Mar 2015

In my dream world, it would be Sanders/Warren, but we know that 'ain't gonna' happen. If Democrats would get out of their apathetic state and go to the polls, we would win any and every election, easily, the numbers are there. But, again, it 'ain't gonna' happen. I don't know what it will take to get Democrats out to vote in every election ~ a fine, if you don't? I'm in my 70's, been a Democrat all my life, voted in every election from day one, and am so weary of our candidates going farther and farther to the right. Centrist, they say ~ I say, bull$**t! I don't think we've sunk deep enough into the abyss to get the average voter's attention ~ YET! I live in a very red state, Tennessee, so needless to say, I see the apathy and ignorance on a daily basis ~ we don't even run Democratic candidates here 3/4th's of the time, pitiful!

marym625

(17,997 posts)
290. Let me know if anyone changes your mind.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:17 AM
Mar 2015

No one can change mine. The reasons you stated are more than enough. Add in Larry Summers and no matter what anyone says, she is a wet dream for the money changers

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
291. I made up my mind when republicans attacked her on the made up Benghazi bullshit. The
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:38 AM
Mar 2015

e-mail scandal where OMG Hillary had a private e-mail server and must of sent an e-mail to the Benghazi terrorists that said attack the embassy now was the icing on the cake.

I will vote for Hillary just to piss off Republicans.

 

Poppy9159

(11 posts)
292. A factor in Hillary's favor
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:40 AM
Mar 2015

I, too, am not thrilled with Hillary as the Democratic nominee. However, in my opinion, there is one overriding factor that, for me, overrides all of her flaws. The next president will probably nominate one or two SCOTUS justices. We cannot afford to allow one of the passengers in the Republican clown car to nominate another extreme right winger. No Democrat has the name recognition or the popularity (today) of Hillary. At this point there is no Democrat who has as good a chance of winning the presidency as Hillary. So, unless another Democrat starts to show that he/she stands a good chance of winning, I will swallow hard and vote for Hillary.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
297. okay then, we are being presented with a dilemma
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 08:33 AM
Mar 2015

We have a diehard Democrat demonstrating the ability to stir the masses (based on number of comments) with a NO vote for Hillary..

WilliamPitt - I may not be a heavy poster, but I read many opinions and comments expressed here - and sincerely respect yours..this is a dilemma for many of us..but the attack on us is unwarranted..and unfair....btw - this is not an attack on you - simple debate -

A problem, if you will, WE MUST face, according to Hillary's vote on the Patriot Act - first brought to you by the Republicans propaganda after 911..the Iraq War, again fear mongering - told by the neo-cons - vote for it - or face the consequences ....

KXL or fracking..I need more info..(glad to see our Prez changed position for now) - glad many states are now banning fracking...many are working hard against fracking..and KXL...

I don't have an answer for WALL ST. (- seriously - regulations..answer, of course, but - we all know who holds the cards in congress -) nor do I know the reasoning of the votes Hillary made on the other subjects you present..I need to do some homework to read her reasoning when she made those votes...there is more to the story than a one liner...and yes, we need to hear what her positions are now -

The War machine, WE all faced, the fear WE all experienced after 911, with little or NO information -(Hillary has regrets about her vote)Hindsight is 20/20...

We do not always get EVERYTHING we want..just sometimes we get what we need..and right now - I, speaking for myself, do not need a republican in the WH...

So I say right back at you- (WARREN, who is beloved by my home state) IS NOT RUNNING, and BERNIE, love Bernie, CAN'T WIN - so what is a diehard Democratic voter to do -

Issue based voting, not beholdin' to any party (IND) was how our family rolled....not anymore..when you find yourself having to LEAN left just to walk upright - because of the insanity on the right..You change your party designation .....(needed, to be able to vote in AZ state primary, many of you may not have to change voter registration)

So, the question - issue based within your own party and their choice of nominee (unknown at this time) - or jump ship...and let the patients of the insane asylum take control of the wheel.. - you chose...

Do I like the fast track - TPP - absolutely NOT...fight like hell against it...call the Prez...turn this around..(this will be the issue in April) - but, do I have the Prez back...you bet! I will do the same in 2016 for whom ever the Democratic party choses for their nominee -

I have chosen my issue - NO MORE EFFIN' WAR!

I go back to "you can't always get what you want, but, just sometimes, you get what you need"

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
300. Well we're not really voting for Hillary, we're voting for a SCOTUS pick that will be obstructed.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:02 AM
Mar 2015

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
307. Why do people believe a corporate centered conservative like Hillary, wouldn't put a corporate
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:12 AM
Mar 2015

centered conservative on the supreme court?

TBF

(31,921 posts)
306. I'd like to see a better candidate
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:12 AM
Mar 2015

but I'm not sure who it is. Hillary has high name recognition, but with it comes all the baggage. As a socialist I think back to Bill Clinton and the immediate thoughts are "NAFTA" and repeal of portions of "Glass Steagal". Those were ruinous for working Americans.

Who do you like as an alternate? Do you think we have enough push from progressives to run Elizabeth? If so I'm game.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
315. When Rahm Emanuel said "where else are they [liberals] going to go?" it confirmed
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:33 AM
Mar 2015

everything I suspected about why truly liberal principles are being given nothing but occasional lip service by the Democratic leadership.

That "you have no choice, you are going to take whatever crumbs we drop on the floor" bullshit doesn't fly with me.

Once it became clear that I was being manipulated and taken for granted by the Democratic leadership I decided that I would rather eat a shit sandwich than continue supporting DINOs.

I want to vote for a true Democrat. And I will work hard and support a real one if one runs. Otherwise that box will be left blank.

rock

(13,218 posts)
317. It appears that you and a few hundred DUers are in the same boat
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:37 AM
Mar 2015

with 45,000,000 or so republicans.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
319. President Cruz is good for you?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:42 AM
Mar 2015

Wrong on the concept...you sound like a misogynist republican or at least Ralph Nadir, so I guess I'm questioning your creds.

ctsnowman

(1,903 posts)
320. I don't either
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:45 AM
Mar 2015

but I'll vote for her if it comes down to her against the Republican clown. I won't work in her campaign though. I have to keep some self-respect.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
328. By his own criteria, he's been wrong so often, we should ignore him.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:34 AM
Mar 2015

Obama made some questionable votes, as well. Politics means never coming across as a loser. If you know your side will lose, you sometimes vote in favor of something. It isn't the ethical thing to do but it's politics.

I would prefer that Clinton not be the nominee, also. But until someone else steps up to the challenge, why waste time trying to trash-talk her?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

marble falls

(56,358 posts)
428. Like you and me, Will will vote for Hillary if a better candidate does not appear.....
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 08:31 AM
Mar 2015

but also like Will, I won't pretend that Hillary on her Senate career didn't make a lot of questionable votes - a LOT of questionable votes - with arguably the worst President in history. Some votes that a lot of Republicans didn't go with, particularly Homeland Security, the Patriot Acts.

Why do we have to gloss over her questionable votes? If she's going all the way (and it certainly appears she is), don't we need to tell her how we want our policies set? Shouldn't she want to be responsive to us?

Speaking truth to power isn't trash talk.

tomsaiditagain

(105 posts)
333. BUT HILLARY IS A WOMAN!!!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:57 AM
Mar 2015

That's all I hear. Hillary will be the first woman president.

Hillary is a New World Order freak.

Peoples lives do not matter to the New World Order freaks, they are all about population control through money. The Clinton's are no different than the Bush's, Romney's or Rothschild's. They all play the "aren't we nice" card. Its all bull crap. Slave labor is the future of the world unless the people rise up against the New World Order freaks.

"If you aint got money in this world, you aint nothin"

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
365. Hillary is way Different from Bush, Romney's etc they are trust fund Babies
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:55 PM
Mar 2015

Hillary has worked for her money. She didn't inherit her money from
a grand old estate.
As far as money, money is not a new world order, is always the
case that money runs the world. (that has always been true)
Just like, it always is the case the people want to run for President
need money.
It is because Hillary doesn't have a personal fortune, that she has
to and raise it. She democrat, GOP legacy family money.

Politics is dirty game, however we cannot afford not play because
the GOP people wants war, and it won't be their trust funds kids
going.
Hillary will sign what ever Warren can get the votes for!!!

GO HILLARY!!!!

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
334. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:10 PM
Mar 2015

In the 1990s I would almost have defended the Clintons to the death.

Only gradually did I realize how wrong I was.

Those 1990s attacks on the Clintons served as a distraction while the President signed one piece of destructive RW legislation after the other. This was government by stealth.

This government by stealth continues today including a massive new smoke screen and every distraction imaginable.

rury

(1,021 posts)
336. K&R. I don't want her as the nominee, either.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:47 PM
Mar 2015

I think I dislike and distrust the woman George W. Bush proclaimed his "sister-in-law" each time I see or hear her.
I seriously wish she and Bill would just go run their foundation, count their money and let somebody else emerge in the Democratic Party.
I refuse to believe that our bench is so shallow that we can't offer anybody except Third Way DLC 1990s retreads as presidential material for the 21st Century.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
341. That's OK. I wanted you to be right on the Karl Rove indictment. Looks like disappointment for you
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:07 PM
Mar 2015

on this and disappointment for me on the other count.

I was also disappointed you called President Obama a used car salesman.

Life has its disappointments. We all get used to them.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
366. I wanted Jason Leopold to be right with the Rove indictment article, too.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:56 PM
Mar 2015

We all have our crosses to bear.

kpete

(71,898 posts)
369. Jason Leopold
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:01 PM
Mar 2015

happens to be a rather nice fellow
he also happens to be human
like many of us, he had some drama in his life and went off course (at least that is how i understood it)
i visited him once in LA

he wanted to be right on rove too!!!


funny, i remember him wondering why he was SO hated on DU,
i could not give him an answer

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
372. No doubt.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:04 PM
Mar 2015

I was tasked to back that article, and so I did, because I back my crew. It amuses me now to see how many people there are who think I wrote it.

Whatevs.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
390. It's totally unexplainable. It's unfathomable, to be frank about it.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:27 PM
Mar 2015

Not only was he hated here, but anyone else who supported him or associated with him was also vilified here.

At a time when we were all looking for some kind of crack in Rove's seemingly impenetrable defense of why he outed Valerie Plame, who knew that Rove was going to testify again.
And again.
And again.
And change his story so many times.

People who still make wise cracks about "waiting 24 business hours" aren't serious people, in my opinion.

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
353. Posts # 44 and #310 refute your echo chamber nonsense rather well.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:17 PM
Mar 2015

Especially #44.

Just 'cuz you say it, don't make it so.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
354. Your a troll of the GOP, If Democrats work as team we can get anyone elected (Go Hillary)
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:37 PM
Mar 2015

Hillary has put her life one line for the Democratic party, other Democrat are
not willing to this, Obama didn't vote on the Iraq war, if he had been in the Senate,
he too would have vote Yes.
Hillary supports Obama policies on Keystone, and Bill's administration negotiated
Climate treaties, that Bush ditched.

Hillary or whom every runs for President needs money, to run for President,
Obama had take money from wealthy donors. A person cannot become President
being a boy scott or a girls scott.

You need to learn to see the world as is it, Ideologue don't get elected, election
are won in the middle.

Hillary will sign anything: Warren and the Democrats can get enough votes for!!!!!

Democrats need to get behind Hillary, not bash her, you are playing into GOP hands
that is why I don't trust that you are Dem!!!



A-Schwarzenegger

(15,596 posts)
375. JURY: lotsa comments.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:09 PM
Mar 2015

On Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your a troll of the GOP, If Democrats work as team we can get anyone elected (Go Hillary)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6399863

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This newbie has the guts to call William Pitt, a troll? Hey MIRT, trashcan this creep.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:00 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Got to be a Parody Troll.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My initial response was to hide it. Changed my mind though. People get called worse things and it is allowed to stand. So until those words get hides, I will always vote to leave this type of name calling to stand. Either the jury system is going to abide by TOS or it isn't. Until the rules are clarified so certain people and phrases get a pass and the ones who object to it get the hides, I will let it all stand. You guys want a better DU? Time to act like it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Being a Clinton apologist/fan doesn't give you the right or the credibility to directly assert a poster is a troll.
TheKentuckian
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like the accusation of the oped author being accused a troll. There is such a thing as free speech on DU. But this post is a passionate response . I would I would give this writer some leeway.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Barely literate (freeper in disguise?) but not ban-worthy.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wow. I was going to vote to remove it until I read the hyper-ugly alert message. Hey, alerter, other than the troll statement, this relatively new member makes some excellent points. Don't agree? Discuss and debate. I sincerely hope MIRT does not take this member out.

red dog 1

(27,647 posts)
405. I agree
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 06:09 PM
Mar 2015

I often serve on DU juries; and I usually vote to LEAVE IT ALONE

However, in this case, I would have voted to HIDE IT


"Your a troll of the GOP, if Democrats work as a team we can get anyone
elected (Go Hillary)"
"Democrats need to get behind Hillary, not bash her, you are playing into GOP hands
that is why I don't trust that you are Dem!!!"


Ironic that this DUer with 127 posts would call William Pitt "a troll of the GOP"
Since, IMO, this EPer is the one who is "a troll of the GOP"

red dog 1

(27,647 posts)
465. Thanks for catching that
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:15 PM
Mar 2015

I hang out a lot at a social website called Experience Project, and other members are often referred to as "EPers"

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
449. Trolls that mean to do Harm to Democrats bash Democrats
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:42 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 03:53 PM - Edit history (2)

If you are bashing a Democrats, you are not loyal, Hillary is the only
one brave enough get in the race, she should be patted on the back.
the rest of back are cowards if they have points views, and don't want to fight for them they are of no use!!
We are Lucky with Hillary. we don't have waste huge amounts,
of money a name recognition, or selling her to the public. A new democrat
would be very risky, and would have their polling numbers down
with GOP. Hillary is good thing, her running mate should be Sherr Brown,
he can deliver Ohio, the GOP cannot win without Ohio

If you want to Check Hillary's power, make Warren and Sanders leaders of
the senate.

Writing things that bash Hillary, is pointless, if you have candidate then support
them, leave the Democrats best hope alone if you are a loyal democrat.

kpete

(71,898 posts)
361. she is NOT my first choice
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:45 PM
Mar 2015

or 2nd, or third
possibly 10 or 11

maybe

but she will be our nominee
and i will vote for her


the only candidate that ever was my FIRST choice was McGovern
it was the first time i ever voted
we all know what happened

peace,
kp

Vinca

(50,168 posts)
385. I'm currently reading a book by Bernie Sanders about one of his campaigns.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:55 PM
Mar 2015

He was in a real moral quandary about who to support when Bill Clinton ran against Bob Dole. He disagreed with Clinton on just about everything, but finally decided the option of Dole and a GOP Congress would be the end of the nation as we know it and the election of Clinton would at least allow for some time to try to make positive changes. That's how I feel about Hillary Clinton. She may not be my choice in the primary, but if I get to the general and it's a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or any other clown car inhabitant, I'm not going to tempt fate and write in another candidate. I'll vote for Hillary.

BobTheSubgenius

(11,535 posts)
387. I have absolutely no quarrel with what you've said.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:02 PM
Mar 2015

Sometimes, though, the choice comes down to the evil of two lessers. While many here would jump at the chance to vote for...say...Bernie Sanders...I feel he is all but unelectable in the current political climate. Whether the candidate can be elected is a vital metric in the decision.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
395. (Rec # 289) Your a republican troll! I bet you even protested against the Invasion of Iraq!
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:06 PM
Mar 2015


Unfortunately, I am compelled to attach the sarcasm thingee so that my intent will hopefully not be misunderstood by some.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
403. That leads to two conclusions
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 05:42 PM
Mar 2015

First, you'd better hope that Servergate produces something that makes her back off from running. I simply cannot see anybody beating her in a nomination battle should she decide to run, and Servergate continues to come up empty.

Second, you've got to hope like hell that whoever steps in to fill the void can beat the Repuke. My money's on Walker getting the GOPig nomination, and he's shown that he can be tough to beat, even in a blue state.

Yeah, she's not ideal by any means, but she'd at least appoint a progressive to fill in for Ginsberg. That's worth something.

red dog 1

(27,647 posts)
413. K&R...Thanks for posting
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:00 PM
Mar 2015

I agree with everything you said in your OP.

I like Hillary; and I think she has done some good things, both as a senator and as Secretary of State.

I just think we need a candidate in 2016 who is more of a "populist" such as:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
Sen. Bernie Sanders (running as a Dem)
Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FLA)


By the way, you sure brought out the trolls with this one.
For example, post # 365
(Referring to Hillary)
."She Democrat....Politics is dirty game, however we can't afford not play because the GOP people wants war...Hillary will sign whatever Warren can get the votes for!!!"

("Hillary will sign what ever Warren can get the votes for!!!&quot ??
What the hell does that even mean?

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
430. Do ya think we'll even have a convention?
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 08:39 AM
Mar 2015

I will so miss all the states and territories loudly proclaiming, "the proud XXXX of XXXXX casts all its votes for HC, the next president of the United Sates...

And all the states and territories followed in its path, nobody else had any delegates because nobody ran in the primaries anywhere. Here and there, a favorite son got 1 delegate.

And that was the day democracy died (but the party saved a lot of money).

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
435. Care to point to the same angst you felt in 2000?
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:15 AM
Mar 2015

Everyone knew Gore was going to win the nomination, but I don't recall anyone complaining about a coronation. We had a Primary, we had a convention.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
442. Gore was Vice President
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:08 AM
Mar 2015

The party usually supports the VP. This year it is inexplicable that a former Secretary is considered before the VP. She has been sold to us as a front runner since Election Day, 2008. Her coming out as a candidate will be huge yawn for a lot of us, but should bring a lot of much-needed relief to her supporters.

And yet, not declared. She has some bad advisers or is having trouble making up her mind. Or is it something as simple as the more she appears, the less she is favored? Her advisers may feel that way and may not be bad advisers.

The Ohio Secretary of State or whoever does their voting stuff was somehow related to the voting machines advocates, and Gore gave up too easily, and it's a pity because with recounting, he won.. The election was a mess, and Florida helped Bush win the 2004.

The whole thing is like a bad dream. Can't wait till it's over, and I mean "OVER," in so many ways.

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
445. Except that the VP isn't running...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:37 AM
Mar 2015

...Biden is politically saavy enough to know he won't beat Clinton, and he'd rather go out on top. He'll only run if Hillary doesn't.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
447. I guess he's waiting for the woman
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:01 PM
Mar 2015

to make up her mind ... ladies before gentlemen ...

we're all waiting, no, we're tired of waiting for her to think about the pros and cons of declaring ... Good thing there's not a plane loaded with a bomb ready to dump it on us. If she's still making up her mind, we are up Schitt's Creek (a new program on POP).

I don't like hasty decisions but this has gone beyond ridiculous. Her people have been doing polls since Obama won his reelection in November 2008, and how bad they will feel if she decides not to run...all these lifetimes wasted.

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
456. You're tired, are you?
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:25 PM
Mar 2015

You must be exhausted waiting for Bernie and Elizabeth. At least Hillary is staffing up.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
473. I like David Axelrod
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:42 PM
Mar 2015

and some fella I saw on TV yesterday, don't remember his name. Also like Dick Durben, Chris Van or Von Hollingsworth, a House member....maybe Al Gore again, maybe Jerry Brown, he says he's too old, but he didn't get any dumber as he aged. There's more but I either can't spell their names or can't remember them. Oh, and Barbara Lee, can't forget Lee.I like almost, almost everybody. I'm not tired of waiting for the right candidate to show up, and he/she will...but truly they haven't made up their minds, but when they do...LOOK OUT

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
480. I think you're not looking at the big picture...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 05:04 PM
Mar 2015

There won't BE a mystery candidate from out of the blue, because it's too late. People like to talk about how "nobody expected" Barack Obama to do as well as he did, but the reality is he was organizing quietly into 2006, long before getting into the race, so he'd have the financial and political resources. This time around, Clinton, Sanders, Webb and O'Malley have started the process. Nobody else has and nobody else is going to.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
437. I am going to explain it to you and end all of your "concerns."
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:23 AM
Mar 2015

"So explain it to me. Explain how we can't do better if we actually try. I'm a Democrat in good standing. I'll wait."

It's called a primary. The problem with your thought process is how accepting of "waiting" for others you are. Stop waiting and start doing. It really is that simple.

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
458. I thought you were over the Iraq vote.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:28 PM
Mar 2015
A Kerry deal breaker
Edited on Thu Jul-10-03 11:39 PM by WilliamPitt

First of all, I will vote for whomever wins the nomination. Period.

If Kerry called for the invasion of Syria, he's fudge. If he backs off on reproductive rights, he's fudge. If he didn't give me the sense he could get the economy back online, he'd be fudge. There's a long list.

I am over the Iraq vote; he got lied to by the Director of the CIA. If I were sitting in his chair when he was told by the Director of the CIA that Iraq was building a nuclear bomb, I probably would have voted for war.

We're lucky. We don't have to make those kinds of decisions. Do I believe the Director of the CIA when he looks me in the eye and tells me some really scary shit? Or do I say he is a liar and risk being wrong to the tune of hundreds of thousands killed?

As for the rest of it, I have a dirty secret. I get all emotional over issues and writing and advocacy and what I believe in. I go onto a voting booth, or contemplate an election, I go cold as ice. All business. Win or go home.

I don't give a damn that he's part of the system. The part he has played in the System has done damned good things for myb state of Massachusetts over the years, for Vietnam Veterans, for the environment, for a hundred other things I care deeply about. If that makes me a sellout, then so be it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=22063&mesg_id=22625




P.S. - I'm not over it, just find your ability to overlook the failings of some men vs. Hillary Clinton's somewhat interesting.
 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
463. And in those TWELVE YEARS,
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:58 PM
Mar 2015

I've seen little support for a Democratic President. You do realize that no one is ever going to forget the "piece of shit used car salesman" rant and his rants against the ACA that has been saving lives since the day it was implemented.

A lot of change in that time indeed.

Just sayin.....

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
466. I would imagine we would have seen more support
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:29 PM
Mar 2015

if the President had acted more like a Democrat.

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
470. No...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:49 PM
Mar 2015

Apparently this President had to be perfect. Same goes for Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's obvious that Pitt would never support anyone who is just part of the system. Because the foot is finally down now or something.








iscooterliberally

(2,849 posts)
460. Me too neither.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:41 PM
Mar 2015

I guess I'll vote for her if she is the nominee though. I just voted for Charlie Christ last year. I mean seriously Democratic Party of Florida? We couldn't find an actual Democrat to run against Nosferatu?

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
467. thanks Will for bringing this up
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:37 PM
Mar 2015

2016 could be a very important year for 99 % of this planet .I will refrain from voicing my contempt for Hillary ,she seems to do well enough on her own proving her alliances

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
471. This ain't Burger King, bro. In a Corporate Oligarchy, you get it their way, or you get it
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:54 PM
Mar 2015

their way.

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel. . ." ~ Marcos


fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
475. Hey Pitt....Too many posts in this thread
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 04:01 PM
Mar 2015

Having a hard time finding the ones I'm responding to. How about a new thread with the same OP title, but add Part II.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
476. We are going ot have a primary.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 04:05 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Vote for one of the other people and use your prominent place to advocate for someone else in the primary.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,282 posts)
494. Resistance is futile.
Fri Apr 3, 2015, 08:53 AM
Apr 2015

In the primary, I'll vote for anyone left of HRC. If anyone actually launches a primary challenge.

Can I live with her record? Sure. There may be no choice.

Maybe she's better than most republicans.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I do not want Hillary Cli...