Dear Secretary Clinton

[question everything]

Once you decide that you are running, please look into the future.

There are stories about you that you intend to praise the economic expansion during President Clinton years. In the 90s. Please don't. This is so.. 20th Century. Before social media and 24-hr news cycle that distort everything. For once.

After all, it was President Clinton, in his re-election 1996 campaign who promoted looking into the future, forward. (I don't remember the precise phrase.). This, of course, was in contrast to the older, tired, scowling Bob Dole.

Yes, the economy expanded in the 90s and all of us benefited. OK, many of us. Certainly more that now.

But things have changed. Moving from manufacturing and farm economy to service one, that started accelerating during Reagan Voodoo economic, finally came home after 2008 and is staring us in the face.

It is not enough to just demand wage equality and to open more jobs. Those manufacturing jobs that paid decent wages since the end of WWII are gone. They are not coming back. And sending middle age workers back to school to learn new skills are not going to help much, either. They may be able to get a new job until the next layoff. Besides, there should be room for unskilled workers besides flipping burgers.

I don't have the answers. I am not an economist. I just know that once you are ready to declare your candidacy, you'd better have a good action plan a-la Romney "in my first day in office."

It has to be an action plan for the 21st Century.

And, of course, I will vote for you. But I want millions more to be convinced that you are the right person for the right time.

[Thinkingabout]

1. I feel sure she will lay out a plan of action when she declares she is running.

I also expect the Rove Trashers will be close on her trail. They want to get the first shots off and have been firing already.

I plan to vote and support Hillary and think she will win the nomination.

[davidpdx]

14. Rove Trashers

I also expect the Rove Trashers will be close on her trail. They want to get the first shots off and have been firing already.

Where?

[Thinkingabout]

22. They have been on DU for a while, they get information from sources like

FOX, at least it I easy to figure if I am on FOX I question everything and now I can easily pick out the trashers.

[question everything]

43. Funny thing about Rove. In June, or July 2011, he had an op-ed

in the WSJ titled: why Obama will lose in 2012.

It was so audacious that I actually kept a copy of this on my hard drive..

This may explain why he insisted that the Foxers wait with calling the election for Obama..

[Fearless]

2. Renounce the TPP

[Thespian2]

3. Dear HRC

I would not vote for you for any position in any government.

[question everything]

4. Thus, you would welcome another Scalia

in the Supreme Court..

[Thespian2]

7. Putting

words in my mouth doesn't work so well for you. Desire an HRC if you want Wall Street continuing to control your life. Try electing a real progressive, not a shill for Goldman Sachs.

Thanks for your well-reasoned response.

[question everything]

8. Words, words, words

In 1968 many progressives like you did not trust Humbert Humphrey to end the war in Vietnam, stayed home, and we ended up with Nixon.

And many blame the ones who voted for Nader in 2000 for the tens of thousands of dead and injured and the continuous destruction of Iraq.

On the other side of the spectrum, I lived in California in the 90s where moderate Republicans were losing the primaries to "stand by principles" voters like you. The result was that Republicans lost all state wide offices and I don't think they have much presence now.

My candidates never ended as the party nomineess, yet on election day I did vote for them.

You can always run yourself because then, of course, you will be satisfied with your candidate.

But if you claim that one candidate or another is not good enough for you, for whatever reason, and if many will join you, then, yes, we will welcome a Republican president and more justices like Thomas and Scalia.

And when this happens you and your like mind buddies will feel oh so virtuous that you "stood on principles" I hope that you will take responsibility while watching the damages done to this country for generations to come.

[Thespian2]

11. You

do not deserve an answer.

[musicblind]

19. You are right.

The poster above is honestly too good for an answer from the likes of you. You are willing to throw away everything if someone you don't love happens to win our primary. If you refuse to support the winner of the democratic primary then you are not a democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

23. Good post, elections has consequences, some of those are Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

It will take years to get rid of those. To worry whether TPP will get past, it will be a minor bill after another Republican president and congress.

[olegramps]

5. Are you a Republican or just a Republican enabler.

If Hilary Clinton is the party's nominee and you refuse to vote for her, then you are enabling the Republican Party. I can only suppose that you would welcome more extremist right wing Supreme Court justices who will destroy what is left of the FDR progressive legislation along with the Civil Rights legislation. Elections, indeed, have consequences.

[Thespian2]

6. What I welcome

is someone, a real progressive, not owned completely by Wall Street You may wish your life to be controlled by the Third Way, I don't.

Calling names really makes me sad...for you.

[Persondem]

9. Are you sure you are so sad over name calling?

In your post you label HRC not progressive, owned by WS and controlled by the 3rd way all without offering a shred of evidence. Repeating comments heard in a liberal echo chamber is only slightly better than comments repeated ad nauseum in a right wing echo chamber.

The facts concerning who HRC is can start here, with her voting record and her ratings by organizations who pay particular attention to various issues both liberal and conservative.

If you take the time to look at her 8 years of detailed records you will see that she tends to be rated rather highly by liberal/ progressive groups and conversely by conservative groups. Rather than focus on a very small number of her votes/positions as seems to be the tendency of HRC bashers, her entire record should be considered.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Her IWR vote, her hubris on Syria and Iran,

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

her tone deaf remarks when Gaddifi was killed, her support for the TPP and Keystone, her need to grab credit for things she had marginal, if any, influence on like the peace process in Ireland and openning relations with Cuba, and her penchant for completely inventing out of whole cloth things such as a perilous landing in Tuzla ..... these are not things anywhere in the vicinity of liberal or progressive. These things come from a narcissistic, pro-corporate, unrepentant hawk.

The question is are you going to believe her hype or your lying eyes?

[Thespian2]

12. Thank you for your astute

response. I think LyingEyes will win for the HRC lovers.

[Persondem]

15. You really have nothing except her war vote (which included many other Dems)

Her links to Keystone are extremely tenuous. Some DU member tried to show convoluted chart linking her to KXL and it was ridiculous. She only barely began TPP and cannot be held responsible for the final product. Which means that your arguments about her taking credit for things she barely had anything to do with (Ireland, Cuba) are silly since you are blaming her for things she barely had anything to do with. You can't have it both ways. Ok so she blew it with her Tuzla landing situation, but that does not mean that "she has a penchant for inventing things out of whole cloth". That's one instance and does not come close to a "penchant".

You are just repeating the noise from the anti-HRC echo chamber.

I am actually not that much of an HRC supporter, but I CAN"T STAND the BS people use to slam her. You have 8 years of votes and ratings, detailed data, to checkout and yet it's always the same cherry picked, weak, nonsense presented without any support whatsoever.

I have looked at her real record, unvarnished, unspun by anyone. Evidently you would care to believe and repeat exaggerations and innuendo that barely have any association with her real record.

[AtomicKitten]

16. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[musicblind]

20. Are you describing yourself?

That is the only way it makes sense. You don't even acknowledge the much more intelligent response to your post.

[AtomicKitten]

21. The "much more intelligent response" is asking

... readers to consider a 6-year old Senate voting record as the record virtually in toto. The last 6 years has provided a trove of information arguably more relevant to 2016.

[karynnj]

30. It wasn't "much less intelligent" - it was borderline dishonest or deluded

Hillary Clinton herself has said she wrote much of TPP and she chose the team to study Keystone (replete with industry links) and she dictated their scope. FAR more than she had to do with the China pact or Cuba. On Cuba, she should get credit for immediately backing Obama. She is also on record before it happened as being for it. However there are many you can credit for that - starting with Obama, Castro and the Pope, adding John Kerry, Rhodes and the other Us negotiator. They ALL did key things.

In her book, she takes some credit for the Syrian chemical weapons deal while minimizing the credit Obama and Kerry deserve - especially in Kerry's case where she gives no credit at all.

In 2008, she attempted to take huge credit for anything positive that happened in the Clinton years, while saying she was privately against some failures. Even then it did not completely work - even though there was a gap of 8 years and Bill Clinton was not going to dispute anything --- though Kennedy and Hatch did when she overstated her role repeatedly on SCHIP, which they wrote and found the Senators to pass it.

[question everything]

44. New year, new campaign

This is why I started this thread. I hope to hear here with fresh ideas and proposals. Even 2008 was before the big Recession (don't you know, "President Romney" is now behind the major reduction in unemployment and the budget deficit. At least, he would be had he won (gag).

[karynnj]

18. On Keystone, the ties are not as indirect as you assume

She was the Secretary of State who initiated the study with the apriori assumption that the same amount of tar sands oil will be taken out of the earth with or without the pipeline. This assumption then was used to essentially rule out ANY estimation of the carbon from the tar sands oil themselves.

The report was finished slightly before she left office. This cleverly left Obama and the new Secretary of State, a life long environmentalist - unlike Hillary - positioned to approve the pipeline. Had that occurred, HRC would likely have happily triangulated - not really saying where she was - unless it became clear that there was gain to be had in one side or the other.

In a recent letter, Senator Whitehouse says that NOT having the pipeline means that the cost to extract and get the tar sands oil to market would be $15 a barrel higher -- the current low international price is around $50 --- so this is a pretty big difference. Anyone who passed a College Freshman level economics class (or a good high school one) would realize that a $15 extra cost would change the threshold price where it was economically feasible to extract that oil -- thus the assumption that underlies the study Hillary Clinton ordered is completely wrong - making it completely useless.

Now, given that the approval for lower pieces was given and they were built, you wonder what the reaction of the Canadian government could be if the US rejects the project. This is a mess left by Hillary Clinton.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Hillary hired the fox to write the enviromental impact

... report on the henhouse - a company closely associated with TransCanada. They declared the project would have minimal impact on the environment. Obama ordered another study.

Hillary's major fundraisers are lobbyists for Keystone.

The math on that isn't favorable to Hillary.

Oh, and on the TPP, she "took a leading role in drafting the TPP." see link below

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

[Persondem]

27. Hillary isn't doing any fund raising. Are you talking about 2008?

Because I thought all that old stuff from 6 years ago (like 8 years of her voting record) was not relevant anymore.

And I have read that article and it's a whole lot of "so what?" as far as TPP is concerned. Per the article she is advocating for American businesses to create jobs and prosperity in the USA, and you are finding fault with that!?!?!?

Yep, she started TPP ... with very good intentions. Have you read her statements and plans for TPP from that time? She has zero to do with the final product of TPP.

None of you HRC bashers has come with much of anything REAL to bring up. It's all six degrees of separation from some lobbyist or she gets blamed for things that she had little to no control over.

[AtomicKitten]

28. Educate yourself.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/keystone-pipeline-lobbyists-were-hillary-clinton-fundraisers?news=844095

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/keystone-xl-pipeline-corruption-with-state-department-should-not-be-legal/18523-keystone-xl-pipeline-corruption-with-state-department-should-not-be-legal

[Persondem]

26. You are off in your timing

Clinton resigned as SoS Feb. 1 2013, the KXL environmental impact report was finished Jan. 2014, almost a year later. And then you talk about recent events ... so are you saying that HRC is (not was, is) at fault because her crystal ball wasn't working properly?

Also, have you looked at the report? Have you seen how many governmental agencies were involved? Do you seriously believe that HRC was in on all the details of the creation of that report? And that she snuck into the State Dept. and wrote the report after she resigned?

Here's a fact you won't like. The only definitive stand the State department under HRC took on KXL was to say NO. It was due to a stupid bit of timing instigated by republicans, but if she were really so all fired in love with KXL she could have given approval then.

[karynnj]

29. The ASSUMPTION that the report used was specified several years before Hillary left

and the preliminary version - that needed to be amended because the Keystone plan changed was written before she left.

The fact is:
She chose the industry linked team to do the study
She signed off on their assignment being to assume that there would be only a marginal difference at most in how much is extracted. THAT ASSUMPTION COMPLETELY DETERMINES THE RESULTS.

I agree that she avoided having her name connected to EITHER position. I suspect it is because she remembers what happened with her IWR vote. At the point she left - saying she favored it could hurt in the primaries -- saying no (to something then approved by over 60%) could hurt in the general election. As to what she thinks privately - she has said nothing.

As to giving approval when the Republicans demanded it -- Obama quickly said no and as President , he had the ultimate decision. The SoS is suppose to advice the President - but nothing says he has to listen.

The State Department study having the results it did has made it harder to say no -- and Obama/Kerry have thrown anything they do defer a decision. This may also be strategic as a "no" is not really final - they will make changes and be back again if the economics are still there.

[Persondem]

31. The fact is that the report uses a figure of

830,000 bpd. Which is accurate and in the long term makes perfect sense since the Canadians are working on a pipeline to the east to take the crappy tar sand oil out the St. Lawrence.

I take it you haven't read the report. For folks who are supposedly shilling for TransCanada, ERM wrote a report that includes many damning concerns. The fact that politicians are ignoring those concerns is not HRC's fault.

You might try actually reading the report.

It's actually the executive summary so it's not that long.

[karynnj]

34. Anyone who deserved to pass EC101, knows that the price will determine

the amount that will be produced. The pipeline to the east - which has some problems itself - is more expensive than the proposed Keystone pipeline. One major concern that is essentially swept under the rug is the damage that a rupture could have - especially in a remote area.

I would agree with you IF Hillary Clinton deigned to answer whether she is for or against it. Here - on a left leaning board - you are absolving Hillary Clinton. Yet, I notice that you have no problem with her team pushing to give her primary credit for the opening with Cuba.

The fact is - she wants each faction to see her with them. Same on TPP. Same on Iran.

[olegramps]

17. Saying that your position aids the Republican Party is not "calling names."

It is a simply fact that if you don't respect the party's nominee and refuse to vote for them your position assists the Republican. I would welcome a progressive nominee, but I would never say that I would not support the party's choice. I would definitely prefer any Democrat over any Republican, especially another Bush who could likely be their nominee. I would like to remind you that he was one of members of PNAC neo-cons that urge the envision of Iraq. We can thank him for the massive loss of life and thousands of devastatingly injured American soldiers.

[AtomicKitten]

25. Hillary and the neocons.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?referrer=

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/

[olegramps]

32. Thanks for your response.

I didn't find the article to be very enlightening. It calls Hilary a neo-neocon, what ever that is because it isn't defined. It lacks any substance and is devoid of examples. I found the article referred to very substantive. Robert Kagan's article in the New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire" is very informative. It is a rather long read but well worth the effort. After reading Hilary Clinton's "Hard Choices" in view of her extensive knowledge of literally hundreds of world leaders and her grasp of complicities of balancing our interests with each nation's interest it only reinforces my belief that she is uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this transitional period of history. How do we keep America's democracy safe? From Kagan's reasoning it can only be accomplished by the furtherance of democratic principles.

[AtomicKitten]

33. You do know Robert Kagan is the co-founder of PNAC, right?

[olegramps]

35. Yes, that is why I found his article interesting and the attempt to link Clinton to the neo-cons.

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 03:42 PM - Edit history (2)

But what exactly is the connection between the PNAC neo-cons and Hilary Clinton's work as SOS or as a senator? It doesn't answer my question what is neo neo-neocon. It only appears to me as being an attempt to smear Clinton. What did she so wrong in the senate? She voted along with a host of other Democrats to enable Bush to invade Iraq but don't neglect that her vote was also accompanied with a caveat. She should have rescinded he vote immediately when the inspectors were withdrawn. She has admitted that she was dead wrong. Let's hear that from the Bush crowd including Jeb who was one of the signatories to the PNAC documents urging the invasion even during the Clinton administration and which Clinton ignored. So one remark that we should have done more in Syria is taken to tar-and-feather her as a neo-con. Nothing more than a damn sham. It is solely a fraudulent attempt to link her to the neo-cons and their failed policies.

[AtomicKitten]

36. She's a hawk, recklessly reactive.

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 04:28 PM - Edit history (2)

Examples? She championed Bush's invasion of Iraq in a speech on the Senate floor urging her colleagues to vote yes on the IWR, this without bothering to read the intelligence. She (and her husband) publically criticized Obama's measured response on Syria and advocated a more muscular interventional policy. When informed of Gaddafi's demise, she laughed, cackling "We came. We saw. He died" - mind-numbingly tone deaf for someone who aspires to be a world leader. Finally is her admitted role in the rightwing Honduran coup and its horrendous aftermath.

What disturbs me most about your take on this is that in one post you admonish a poster for not planning to vote for Hillary reminding them of PNAC's complicity in promoting the ill-begotten Iraq War ... and in your next post you write favorably about Robert Kagan's piece on global interventionalism.

The PNAC crew prefer a Republican wins the presidency in 2016 but if that doesn't happen, they have made clear their next choice is Hillary. Like it or not, there's a damn good reason for that.

[olegramps]

38. Where in the hell did I say that I admired Kagan's article?

I said that it was interesting and did not elaborate in that it was linked to the charge that Hilary was a neo-neocon. It was an attempt at character assassination by a flimsy attempt to associate her with the neo-cons. So continue to tear her down in an attempt to defeat her nomination and see what the reward will be if you succeed in getting Bush who is a REAL PNAC neo-con elected.

Do I think that she hasn't made mistakes? Hardly. So has Obama, but none as tragic as what the Bush and Cheney accomplished and what will await us if a Republican is elected.

As regard to the the Kagan article, yes I found the article interesting in that he clearly laid out a new approach to justify the use of force to protect our interest carefully never actually calling for military force but some undefined constructive involvement. Those interests are actually the interest of the 1% who control the world economy not the protection of the United States. It is analogous to what was done in South America when we propped up dictatorships to protect American Corporations under the guise of combating communism. It was interesting to see him use the misguided American anticommunism scare that allowed this to have popular support as analogous to the general consensus of the today against our involvement in military campaigns. That is why I found it interesting. He is saying that the present general consensus is wrong for the same reasons that our prior involvement was wrong. It stands the argument on its head.

It appears to me that you have such a zeal to destroy Hilary Clanton that any admiration for her successes is totally discounted. She was universally acclaimed for her work as Secretary of State and I would suggest that you read her book, "Hard Choices" for a more balance view.

Elections have consequences and it is my position that the election of a Republican, especially Romney or Bush, would be disastrous. Their Supreme Court appointments alone would spell the end of middle class that was built on FDR legislation and most likely would result in repeal of the ACA. The Republicans have been dedicated to the destruction of unions, Social Security and Medicare and every safety net program and will gleefully starve millions of children and disabled. They are nothing more than fascists bastards and I will do noting to aid their election.

You have an absolute right to your opinions and I welcome them. I can only hope that my grandchildren will have the same opportunity.

[AtomicKitten]

39. It is not my intention to wrestle you to the ground on this.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

We simply have a distinct difference of opinion.

I opposed Hillary in 2008 because of her support and promotion of Bush's illegal and immoral war on Iraq. I am not alone in being appalled by her aggressively hawkish attitude regarding our place on the world stage.

I also believe a good portion of Hillary's declared experience is hype. Rather than further pissing off her supporters with specifics, I will leave you with this regarding her tenure as SOS: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state

Telling the truth about a politician or policies is not smearing them. It is unvarnished and perhaps uncomfortable, but it is still the truth.

My intention is to tell the truth about something that matters to me deeply and that is our country's foreign policy. I stand dead set against her candidacy for reasons I believe are valid and monumentally important.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Cheers.

[TheKentuckian]

41. The folks that nominate her make that choice not me. I've stated that I have gone down the corporate

servitude, military adventurism, surveillance state path well past tolerance already, my last go along to get along vote was in 2012 and it was a bid for time for the party to get it's head on straight but instead we keep marching hard in the wrong direction. I didn't choose this and have in actuality been left no other choice because I cannot endorse this heading and will no longer be a willing enabler.

You should keep in mind that whining about the TeaPubliKlans gets kinda weak when the reasons for the opposition to both the circle D and the TeaPubliKlans are in no small part for the same reasons.

Even the traditional trump card of the Supreme Court is hugely watered down here because do I trust Clinton to appoint judges that will leash the corporations? Of course not.

Can her appointments be expected to rein in the security and surveillance agencies? Nope.

Are they going to ending secret laws? Right.

Restore the 4th? Laughable.

Favor transparency? Nope.

In fact, I don't trust her to appoint anyone to anything, I don't like the hacks she surrounds herself with at all. The corporate capture will continue without pause.

If certain folks didn't want a TeaPubliKlan then they wouldn't be trying shove another Turd Wayer down our throats as far as I'm concerned, cry to them they are hell bent on advancing the right wing world view.

[hollowdweller]

13. If she runs against Bush I want her to look back for sure

OK so Bill, her husband, he had to clean up after Bush 1. Obama had to clean up after Bush 3. I think she should make it very clear that the public should not forget the past and not repeat it by electing another Bush.

[Sunlei]

37. more people need the barriers lifted for small businesses from their homes.

Other then online work, most neighborhoods outlaw even the smallest of home based businesses.

Even a small business like fix one or two cars a day,= an income well above the poverty level.

[Corey_Baker08]

40. Dear 2016 Democratic Nominee, Whomever You Turn Out To Be, You Have My Vote...

Period.

[question everything]

45. Well said

Most of us hope for a candidate that we can be proud. Of course, once that person takes office s/he is faced with the reality of running the country and keeping the Republicans in check.

But any "DINO" and other names that we see here, is preferable to the most enlightened Republican (if there is such an animal).

[Splinter Cell]

42. Dear Secretary Clinton

Don't run.