HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » No. Hillary Clinton did n...

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:17 AM

No. Hillary Clinton did not call people on welfare, "deadbeats." (edit: internet slooow)

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Please note: I'm having issues with my internet right now (slow, fast, slow, stalled, etc.). I'll get back to the replies after I straighten things out with my ISP. Sorry. (hoping this posts)

Here's a direct link to her article from March 2000. http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-2000-03-15.html

Here's the link to her series of weekly articles: http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/archive.html?DATE_START=2000-05-01 You can search by month.

Here's where the word "deadbeat" was used:

Tom is a 32-year-old father of two. Although he is required to pay child support, he recently lost his low-paying job, and has fallen behind in his payments.

David, also 32, is divorced with four children. Unlike Tom, David has a good job, but brushes aside his obligation to pay support to his family.

In this country, nearly one in three children grows up without a father, and is five times more likely to live in poverty than a child in a two-parent family. Child support is an important component in helping lift these children out of poverty, and is critical to supporting their healthy development.

As part of the administration's budget proposal, the President has included a major new initiative aimed at helping these children. His plan is tough on "deadbeat" parents like David who can afford to pay; helps "deadbroke" parents like Tom who are struggling to do the right thing; and ensures that more child support money goes directly to families.

<snip>

For parents like Tom who want to meet their obligations to their children, but are unable to afford them, the budget includes a component called Fathers Work/Families Win that will help approximately 40,000 low-income, non-custodial parents (the vast majority of whom are fathers), work, pay child support, and reconnect with their children.

<snip to much more at link>


This was an article about the issue of "deadbeat dads," since rebranded (an now barely reported in the press) as "deadbeat parents." Those parents who can afford to keep their children out of poverty but choose not to do so. It was a big deal on the national stage, once upon a time. Just ask the press.

Here's another direct link to the articles mentioned at buzzfeed: http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-1998-06-03.html

And a snip:

One day, Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, "Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing." That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare.

<snip>

Felicia Booker, who is blind, needed public assistance after the birth of her first child, but she got "tired of sitting around the house and tired of not having enough money." She enrolled in a six-week training program that led to a position at a computer programming company. Now, she works for A.G. Edwards in St. Louis, Mo., earning $46,000 a year.

Tonya Oden was caring for her three children with the help of public assistance when she heard about a training program at Cessna Aircraft Co.'s 21st Street Subassembly Facility in Wichita, Kan. She enrolled and was the first trainee to become an inspector at the facility, where she now earns $12 an hour.

<snip>

The President's child-care initiative would provide much-needed help for working parents, and he has proposed the funding of vouchers for those who need housing assistance to get or keep their jobs. And we need to find even more private-sector jobs.

<snip to much more at link>

106 replies, 18114 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply No. Hillary Clinton did not call people on welfare, "deadbeats." (edit: internet slooow) (Original post)
Cerridwen Jul 2015 OP
BainsBane Jul 2015 #1
AllFieldsRequired Jul 2015 #53
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #85
AllFieldsRequired Jul 2015 #86
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #87
AllFieldsRequired Jul 2015 #88
Walk away Jul 2015 #101
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #103
George II Jul 2015 #94
okasha Jul 2015 #97
George II Jul 2015 #98
okasha Jul 2015 #99
JI7 Jul 2015 #2
Historic NY Jul 2015 #28
George II Jul 2015 #95
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #3
BainsBane Jul 2015 #4
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #5
Cheese Sandwich Jul 2015 #10
JDPriestly Jul 2015 #17
JDPriestly Jul 2015 #19
leftynyc Jul 2015 #23
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #30
leftynyc Jul 2015 #31
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #35
leftynyc Jul 2015 #36
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #37
leftynyc Jul 2015 #39
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #40
JDPriestly Jul 2015 #74
JDPriestly Jul 2015 #81
BainsBane Jul 2015 #34
JDPriestly Jul 2015 #79
BainsBane Jul 2015 #90
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #44
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #43
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #96
jtuck004 Jul 2015 #6
Cerridwen Jul 2015 #7
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #8
jtuck004 Jul 2015 #16
Cheese Sandwich Jul 2015 #9
azurnoir Jul 2015 #11
wyldwolf Jul 2015 #12
Cheese Sandwich Jul 2015 #15
ibegurpard Jul 2015 #25
azurnoir Jul 2015 #13
BlueMTexpat Jul 2015 #14
oasis Jul 2015 #20
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #24
MADem Jul 2015 #29
Scootaloo Jul 2015 #58
MADem Jul 2015 #60
Maedhros Jul 2015 #64
BlueMTexpat Jul 2015 #100
Maedhros Jul 2015 #104
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #18
oasis Jul 2015 #22
sufrommich Jul 2015 #21
Livluvgrow Jul 2015 #26
ibegurpard Jul 2015 #27
tblue Jul 2015 #32
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #41
pa28 Jul 2015 #33
delrem Jul 2015 #38
Cheese Sandwich Jul 2015 #42
oasis Jul 2015 #45
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #47
oasis Jul 2015 #50
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #52
oasis Jul 2015 #54
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #55
oasis Jul 2015 #57
BainsBane Jul 2015 #66
ljm2002 Jul 2015 #102
Evergreen Emerald Jul 2015 #91
frylock Jul 2015 #93
delrem Jul 2015 #69
BainsBane Jul 2015 #71
delrem Jul 2015 #72
BainsBane Jul 2015 #73
delrem Jul 2015 #76
BainsBane Jul 2015 #89
delrem Jul 2015 #92
frylock Jul 2015 #83
frylock Jul 2015 #82
BainsBane Jul 2015 #49
LiberalAndProud Jul 2015 #56
BainsBane Jul 2015 #59
LiberalAndProud Jul 2015 #63
BainsBane Jul 2015 #65
LiberalAndProud Jul 2015 #67
ieoeja Jul 2015 #46
oasis Jul 2015 #61
ieoeja Jul 2015 #68
ibegurpard Jul 2015 #70
Hekate Jul 2015 #48
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #80
riversedge Jul 2015 #51
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #78
frylock Jul 2015 #84
kath Jul 2015 #62
Sheepshank Jul 2015 #75
Luminous Animal Jul 2015 #77
William769 Jul 2015 #105
pjpw2320 Apr 2016 #106

Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:23 AM

1. Are you saying they deliberately distorted it that badly?

Jesus. That's incredible to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:43 PM

53. Isnt this lie being used to attack Hillary here at this forum?

I was sure I read right here somewhere that Hillary was referring to poor people in general or people on welfare.

That is a lie, as it turns out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllFieldsRequired (Reply #53)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:12 PM

85. It is true. Here is a link to the article in which she call poor people on welfare 'deadbeats'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #85)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:14 PM

86. Looks like it is taken out of context to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllFieldsRequired (Reply #86)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:31 PM

87. And that can be your opinion but it shows that the OP is wrong.

The OP is attempting to replace one instance where Hillary referred to welfare recipients as 'deadbeats' with another instance where Hillary was talking about deadbeat dads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #87)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:36 PM

88. But the article you are showing has no context at all. I will look again but that

was my impression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #87)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:43 AM

101. Did you ever find that context? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #101)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 03:37 PM

103. I linked to the entire article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllFieldsRequired (Reply #86)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:29 PM

94. A 13-year old quote totally taken out of context (if that article is really accurate anyway!)

David Letterman used to do a bit about partial quotes that made the speaker say something completely opposite of what the person really said or meant.

This could be another example - too bad Letterman retired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #94)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:55 PM

97. "Now that we've said

that these people are no longer deadbeats..."

Okay, who is "we?" Who is she quoting here? Someone has apparently called welfare recipients "deadbeats," but there's no context in this article to tell us who. She's referring to people who are now working, and the issue at hand is how to keep them employed.

Just guessing, but I'm betting it was someone with an R after his name who called aid recipients "deadbeats."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #97)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:02 PM

98. Right....she was almost sarcastically quoting someone else. A Costanza type quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #98)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:21 PM

99. That's exactly what it looks like to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:42 AM

2. i was wondering why it didn't come up during the 2008 campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:01 AM

28. Well if need you ask.........

Who has to gain by knocking her down? Is it the RW or the - W.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:30 PM

95. Perhaps because what is "reported" isn't really what happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:44 AM

3. Ok, posters who floated that "welfare deadbeat" assertion, how is this post wrong?

Her using the word "deadbeat" to refer to deadbeat dads makes a lot more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:47 AM

4. I posted questions in those threads

cause I really don't like deception, and I want to know if maybe there were different uses of the word at different times. In one case, the poster cited an article from Buzzfeed. I will have to read it to say if he presented it accurately. The other person just "remembered" and shared an account. Anyway, I posted links to this OP in both of those threads. Let's see if they respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:50 AM

5. Thanks. nt

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:44 AM

10. see #9

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:50 AM

17. I asked someone what they meant by "deadbeat," but I did not get an answer.

I think of deadbeat as someone who doesn't pay a bill they owe. I couldn't see how that would apply to mothers of young children or others on welfare. This explanation makes some sense. Deadbeat doesn't just refer to a poor mother who really wants to stay home with a child who needs her. It refers to parents who don't pay child support when they could afford to.

This makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:08 AM

19. I now understand the way Hillary used the word "deadbeat," but something still bothers me.

Why is it that if a poor woman with very young children or with school-aged children wants to stay home to care for her children, she lacks dignity because she needs public assistance to be able to stay with her children. But if a woman whose husband makes a lot of money decides not to work and stay home with her young children, no one questions her dignity.

The poor woman is dependent on public money. The middle-class or wealthy woman is dependent on her husband and maybe family money. Both are trying to do what they think is right for their children.

Why is one viewed as needing to "move from dependency to dignity," while the other is viewed as just making a choice to be dependent that does not deny her her dignity.

Why is it "dignity" to rely on your husband's income while you stay at home with your children, but "dependency" when you are relying on public income to stay home with your children. I don't think that poor women generally have the choice to stay home with their children nowadays.

Bernie is advocating for paid family leave for new mothers and fathers. That is normal in Europe. Doesn't Hillary also support mandatory paid family leave for new parents?

Is that some sort of dependency?

Paid family leave for new parents used to be the rule in Northern Europe. I don't know whether they now have the American view that staying home with your children is dependency and not dignity unless you are rich. I don't know. Would be a shame if they did.

As Bernie points out, we are a wealthy nation, and family leave and sometimes even paying a mother to stay home with her small child or children is a family value.

Today, many women want to work. But staying home with small children should not just be a choice for women whose husbands make a lot of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:07 AM

23. In one scenario

 

you have a woman who doesn't need any help from ME (as a taxpayer) when she decides to have children. She can well afford it and she can afford to stay home. Please tell me why I should have to pay for women to have more children so they can stay home? I'd love to not work also - but I can't afford not to and I certainly wouldn't be bringing children into the world I couldn't afford and expect the taxpayers to pay for them. That's different from going through a hard time - a death of a spouse, loss of a job and needing help to get back on your feet. But you're talking about taxpayers footing the bill so someone can further populate an already overpopulated world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:19 AM

30. don't want to speak for someone else....

but jumping off the point, i think the question has to do with the use of the word dignity. the article and the coments by hrc made it sound like the woman on assistance needs to get a job to regain her dignity, while the sahm with the rich husband does not. I agree with you that people who cannot afford to have more kids should not and then try and get assistance to stay home. i am with you on that. but the differential application of the word dignity and the suggestion that people on aid don't have it is what seems to be troubling. needs a better choice of words. i think hillary probably had the right intent but didn't say it well imo.

edit. then again, if jobs paid a living wage, this would not be as much of any issue for any family that wants to have kids/more kids. more fallout from the aristocracy rule feudal system set up by the gop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:52 AM

31. I agree with you that income

 

inequality is incredibly important - should be the hottest issue out there but that doesn't change the fact there are, in fact, those who take advantage of welfare. My sister (she's a lawyer) worked in a low income area and had to see it up close every single day. The majority of welfare recipients were legitimately in need - a medical emergency, a spouse died, person got laid off and had no savings but there were those who did sit on their asses all day EXPECTING the taxpayers to pay for them and their children. To pretend this doesn' t happen doesn't serve us well at all and makes it sound like we're okay with such abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:24 AM

35. the bad kids tend to get the whole class in trouble

happens with every program. i don't know what the percent of abusers is, but it would be nice if we could get it down to a very minimal percentage....doubt it will ever be zero but something low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #35)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:34 AM

36. But first we seem to have to prove

 

that first we acknowledge there is abuse and that we're not okay with it. Plenty of people right here are pretending it's not a problem at all. That doesn't serve anyone well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #36)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:38 AM

37. i think a couple of issues have gotten intertwined

I do wonder if some of the reason people do not want to acknowledge that a problem exists is because of the absolute rage brought about through the oppression of income and wealth inequality. there can develop an attitude that "we all deserve" it and so forth. certainly everyone deserves to have decent housing, healthcare, and decent food. But I do think the backlash against the obscenely wealthy is starting to come out in discussions like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #37)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:19 PM

39. That's an excellent point and

 

I suspect you're right. The problem of income inequality is touching all of our lives in so many ways. It should be topic one in 2016 (well that and the supreme court falling into the hands of another Scalia).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:22 PM

40. i think it will be THE issue in 2016

scalia (shudder.....)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:19 PM

74. I think you put your finger on the issue that troubles me. I don't know where I stand on it.

If a poor woman stays home with her children because she loves being a mother and wants her children to have a loving upbringing at home, she is considered to be "sitting on her ass."

If a rich woman stays home for the same reason, and her husband supports her, she is considered to be doing the right thing for her children and not "sitting on her ass."

Why do we see it that way?

And I think most of us do?

I stayed home with my children and just had a few piano students. Didn't earn enough to count for anything because I had to pay a babysitter to do it. But I was home most of the time. We were in Europe and I couldn't get a regular job. My husband had the work permit. I did not.

We just barely survived on very little money but I was home with my children. I happen to love caring for children, so it worked out well for our family. But was I just "sitting on my ass" during those years? No. Being a home-bound mother is hard work.

And what do we do in our society to make working outside the home really compatible with being a mother of young children?

Every time one of my daughter's young children gets sick, for her as a working mother and for her husband as a working father, there is a crisis and a big decision to make: who sacrifices reputation and pay in the office to stay home with our child?

I really think that this issue of "sitting on our asses" and who pays for early childhood care is a big, big, big one.

As I think all our candidates are saying, the first months and years of a child's life are the most important in terms of emotional and intellectual development.

Day care or pre-school education can be wonderful, preferable for a child of three on up than living in a home in which the child hears little language, develops little self-confidence and sees a lot of conflict or neglect. But the problem years are between one and three.

This is a much more complex issue than this discussion about deadbeats and dignity suggest. This is really about what is best for our children regardless of the financial situation of the parents.

And from another approach, this is about demand for employment, equal pay and better pay for working people. It's deplorable that a woman who is raising small children as a single parent cannot afford to stay home with a sick child and in some cases risks losing her job if she does.

The problem with the Clinton "welfare reform" was that it looked at one aspect of the problem but did not see the whole picture. It left a lot of women and families high and dry.

And that at a time when thanks to NAFTA, other trade agreements, increasing computerization of the workplace (lots of old-fashioned steno-pool jobs lost, lots of service representative jobs exported to India and fewer good opportunities for women in the workplace) and high unemployment, families have been hurt by the welfare reform that focused on pushing women to work but not on preparing for an economic downturn or understanding what it is to be a working woman with young children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:46 PM

81. Because the important issue here is not what you or I or the mother wants, but the

development of the brain and personality of the very, very young child aged one to three.

That child needs a caregiver who is really focused on developing the child's patience, sense of safety, caution, language skills and even number skills.

I played number games with my children before they were one year old. They are great at math. But then I was at home with my children. No money, but I was at home with them, teaching them, making sure they felt safe and helping them develop the ability cope in their lives.

Having a society of well grounded, secure, intellectually prepared children is worth more than saving the tax money in order to spend it on another drone or bomber.

We need to have more of an understanding of what very young children need and what happens to them and our society when very young children don't get what they need. I suspect we would discover that a number of our problems, from rampant addiction to violence go right back to the way we encourage the neglect of very young children and the separation of children from their parents prior to the age of three.

So we need a lot more research on this issue. If mothers must work, what needs do infants up to age three have, and how can they be satisfied when the mother is working?

I will never forget the mother who brought her two-year-old who was being raised by a nanny to work. I have worked in day care with two-year-olds. That child was having emotional problems already. He was far too quiet for a two-year-old, far to still.

You never, ever get to redo your first months and years of life. And most of us remember the events in those months and years only in our deepest selves. We cannot easily dredge them up from our subconscious and deal with them. A lot of hurt, a lot of injury happens in those forgotten days.

As I have said, the epidemic of addiction, of anger, of violence -- to what extent is it due to the fact that children have too little or the wrong kinds of stimulation during those decisive thousand plus days of very early childhood.

How much would it be worth to know what really is best for children in that age group?

I stayed home with mine. They are great. And it's very important that they are really close to me and my husband. That's another thing that needs to be studied. Is a child raised in those early years by strangers as capable of making strong, lasting attachments as one raised by its mother or adopted mother?

I think that we need to think about the child's needs and not our own desire to keep that little bit of money that it would cost to keep mothers who want to stay home with very young children home with those children. We should have done a lot more research before reforming welfare at the very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:26 AM

34. As someone who grew up on Welfare

I don't find that statement problematic at all. I don't believe people want to live on welfare. It's a function of society based on inequality, without opportunity. People would much prefer to have access to education and a living wage. Note that in communist countries, there is no such thing as welfare. People have paying jobs, day care, medical care, and education. Everyone fills a role in society.

My problem with the Welfare reform was that it didn't provide real opportunities for training people for jobs the economy actually needed, for jobs that could give them a future. My mother benefited from such a program in the 1970s, was able to get training, find a paying job and support us. And sadly, like the women Clinton spoke about, we had a father who didn't pay child support. That is often part of the situation for women and children living in poverty.

I see nothing dignified about a system of inequality that keeps some at the bottom, without education, opportunity or access to a living wage. That is what Welfare supports. Yes, it is necessary in our society, but only because the society is broken.

I certainly didn't feel dignified growing up in that situation, far from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:32 PM

79. Yes. But still I question why we are focusing on that "lazy" woman who stays at home.

I think we need to focus on what is good for the child, the child like you who watches her mother move into the workplace.

And we have to understand that a child of three has a different relationship with mother than does a child of one or of three months.

I think the emphasis in welfare or work discussion should be on the science, the studies about the needs of very young children (under three years) and the focus should be entirely on the needs of the child.

Women can and will adjust.

But there is one thing. We need laws that protect older people in the workplace. Because the mother with a special needs child or who chooses to stay at home needs to be able to re-enter or enter the working world when her child's needs are taken care of. For most mothers that happens when the child reaches maybe three or so. For some mothers that does not happen until the child is safely through special education and has learned somehow to work to care for himself.

We need a child centered standard for deciding welfare matters. And we need equal rights and pay for women in the workplace.

We also need good housing that is suitable for poor families and single mother families with day care and in some cases infant care right there.

But infants need a lot of intensive attention and care, and I do not view a mother who wants to stay home with a child under three as lazy or "sitting on her ass," as one DUer said.

We need good, up to the best researched standards, day care. We need to make sure that every very young child in America is exposed to the language, the talk, the stories, the books, the stimuli that help a child develop its brain in the early weeks, months and years of life. Most of our children do not get enough experience with numbers in early childhood. I think that counting is one of the first skills a child should understand. But that is my unresearched opinion, just based on experience.

That should be more our concern than whether the parents are "deadbeats" whatever that means or whether mom is "sitting on her ass." I don't think any mother who stays home with a two-year-old is sitting on her "ass." Those were the thinnest years of my life,, when I was home with my children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #79)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:01 PM

90. I agree with all of that

Very good points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:04 PM

44. Actually, JD, she did call welfare recipients deadbeats. You can read the 2002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:03 PM

43. Because she did say it about those on welfare. The deadbeat dads quote is an

entirely different issue.

Please click on this link to find the 2002 interview where she states that welfare recipients are deadbeats.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:24 PM

96. Right. The Gazette couldn't have misquoted her.

I'm sure they're just as accurate as the New York Times.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:27 AM

6. ""deadbeat parents." < Since most work who get these that's just a filthy republican tactic, and any

 

piece of crap that refers to it needs to call themselves something other than a democrat. Or maybe even a fucking human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:32 AM

7. I'm not clear on what you're saying. Could you please flesh it out a bit. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:39 AM

8. So everyone here on DU who called Joe Walsh a deadbeat dad is a Republican troll?

Spare me.

When I was a kid my dad didn't pay child support, even though he had a good job. I have no qualms about calling these assholes out for the misery they cause to their kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:49 AM

16. I define a deadbeat as someone who got something they didn't work for. Almost anyone who

 

gets food stamps has to work for them, even if it is just groveling for them - and hoping some self-righteous piece of crap won't call you a deadbeat.

Here, on the other hand, are some I am damn sure got money that OTHER people did the work for

The 10 wealthiest couples in the world - http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2015/07/22/wealthiest-couples-in-the-world/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:41 AM

9. I believe all these quotes check out as legit.

 

The quoted content from the March 15, 2000 column is:

Since we first asked mothers to move from welfare to work, millions of families have made the transition from dependency to dignity. While many single mothers are doing a tremendous job of working and raising their children, they should not have to do it alone. It is up to Congress to pass these proposals, so that more fathers can share the responsibility of supporting their families, and so that every child has a chance to find the love and support of two parents.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-2000-03-15.html

The particular focus is on this issue of moving people from "dependency to dignity".

The deadbeat quote was as reported in the Gettysburg Times, and reprinted here in another newspaper:

Here is a link to the interview cited as 2002 Gettysburg Times, but which is reprinted here in another paper, and contains the quote:

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”


https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

So you can see in that she was not necessarily only talking about "deadbeat dads" as you strongly suggest. Actually the piece talks some about how "the former welfare mothers are working".


So you are pointing to an article about deadbeat dads saying it is just about that, but the "deadbeat" quote came from somewhere else entirely.

And who could forget this gem, which also check out as legit:
One day, Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, "Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing." That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare.

Today, Rhonda is an administrative assistant at Salomon Smith Barney, a New York financial services firm. After a year and a half on the job, she earns $29,000 a year with full benefits and stock options.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-1998-06-03.html


I understand you have a different spin on it, and of course you will defend and give context to these quotes if you want to.

Simply I came here to say the quotes are real and I still find them disturbing, and also there is no reason to say she is only referring to "dads" or child support when she says "deadbeats". There is a fairly long interview there if you check that google news archive link, and it is not about child support.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:55 AM

11. That's very nice however the deadbeats quote was from a 2002 interview not '96'98 or 2000

In an April 2002 interview with the Gettysburg Times, then-Senator Clinton reiterated the impetus behind her husband’s effort to “substitute dignity for dependence.” At the time, Congress was considering the reauthorization the 1996 law.

“There were people in the White House who said, ‘just sign anything,’ you know,’ the New York senator said in an interview. ‘And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay.’”
In that same interview, Clinton also said that people who had moved from welfare to work were “no longer deadbeats.”

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfare#.neE5LyXX

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:13 AM

12. There's always been this disturbing tendency among some supporters of 'outsider' candidates to...

... purposely misquote and misrepresent then, when fact-checked, to dig their heels in. Great research Cerridwen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:19 AM

15. Actually she did say people on welfare were deadbeats, and not just "dads".

 

The quoted content from the March 15, 2000 column is:
Since we first asked mothers to move from welfare to work, millions of families have made the transition from dependency to dignity. While many single mothers are doing a tremendous job of working and raising their children, they should not have to do it alone. It is up to Congress to pass these proposals, so that more fathers can share the responsibility of supporting their families, and so that every child has a chance to find the love and support of two parents.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-2000-03-15.html

The particular focus is on this issue of moving people from "dependency to dignity".

The deadbeat quote was as reported in the Gettysburg Times(2002), and reprinted here in another newspaper:

Here is a link to the interview cited reprinted here in another paper, and contains the quote:
“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”


https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

So you can see in that she was not necessarily only talking about "deadbeat dads" as strongly suggested by the OP. Actually the piece talks some about how "the former welfare mothers are working".


So OP is pointing to an article about deadbeat dads saying it is just about that, but the "deadbeat" quote came from somewhere else entirely.

And who could forget this gem, which also check out as legit:
One day, Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, "Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing." That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare.

Today, Rhonda is an administrative assistant at Salomon Smith Barney, a New York financial services firm. After a year and a half on the job, she earns $29,000 a year with full benefits and stock options.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/talking-it-over-1998-06-03.html

Sadly all these sickening quotes are real and she's not just talking about "deadbeat dads".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:16 AM

25. was she misquoted?

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on that even though it's shit policy but I'm reading the quote in your link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:17 AM

13. thanks for the added link however it only covers Talking it over article and for April of 2002 when

she said the deadbeats quote the month is blank as are many others

http://www.creators.com/opinion/hillary-clinton/archive.html?DATE_START=2002-04-01

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:17 AM

14. Those who want to continue to believe the worst

about Hillary - for whatever reason - will do so no matter what.

Whether, however, and whenever she used the term "deadbeat," which can be used reasonably in a lot of reasonable contexts, it is much less offensive to me than are those who keep trying to besmirch her for such a petty thing. Her life works literally speak for where her head and heart are. If her detractors want to argue for their own candidate, great, there are lots of great things to argue.

But whenever they use incidents like this to smear Hillary, they do their candidate no good with me or with many I know.

Those who continue to use such incidents against Hillary show some desperation. IMO, they are on a par with GOPers who keep flogging the dead horse of "Benghazi" and birthers who keep insisting that Prez O was actually born in Kenya.

Using a reasonable term in a reasonable context should not be considered inappropriate.

Thanks for trying to argue pro-actively. But with some it is truly a lost cause, IMO, as can be seen by some comments here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:43 AM

20. Excellent, thoughtful post. (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:16 AM

24. I've tried to tell them ...

... that for their preferred candidate to win the primary, they will need to convert lots and lots and lots of current Hillary supporters.

And smearing Hillary with this kind of stuff won't do that. The more they do it, the more Hillary supporters will turn away from them. People who support Hillary, but who might be willing to consider others, will do the same.

In many cases, its the same folks that tend to claim that they are the most best liberals around, and others are lacking in comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:09 AM

29. We could go back a few decades and find some pretty ugly things that Bernie Sanders said, you know,

if we wanted to be petty. And pointless.

And he said them about women, specifically, and they were rather "UN-evolved" to put it kindly.

I mean...should we go on?

When people have to go back years to play the GOTCHA game, that suggests they've got nuthin'.

This is probably the stupidest of all the stupid accusations I've seen against Clinton, ever. It's reeks of flopsweat desperation.

When people spend more time trying to tear another candidate down rather than lift their own up, they've got a losing strategy working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:52 PM

58. "Could"? More like DID. And failed.

 

You guys are welcome to try again, if you really like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:58 PM

60. I think the poutrage that ensued suggested that the arrow hit its mark.


The hub-bub ONLY died down after Sanders admitted that his remarks were wrong and he called them--and I quote--"stupid." So, I'm not quite seeing the 'fail' you're remembering.

Interesting, your enthusiasm for this approach, though. I thought Dubya patented that "Bring it on" stuff....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:12 PM

64. She felt the need to pander to the small-government types, so she used "deadbeats."

 

When she needs to pander to liberals, she'll use other language.

It's what she does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #64)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 05:35 AM

100. From the tone of your post,

you likely can never be accused of showing fairness towards Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #100)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 11:11 PM

104. I judge Hillary by the same standards as I do any politician. [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:50 AM

18. These hit pieces keep getting posted on DU and nothing stopping them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:02 AM

22. Posters who feverishly post hit pieces on Democrats, reveal more about themselves.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:44 AM

21. There is no smear against Hillary Clinton that won't be attempted

by frantic supporters of losing candidates.They don't care if it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:32 AM

26. truth isn't smear

your chosen candidate has a trust issue and her supporters are obviously not doing anything to help her. You cant even be truthful when then facts are dangled in front of you. You are so loose with the truth and low and behold your candidate is seen as overwhelmingly unrustworthy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:38 AM

27. She did right here

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

I keep saying I'm willing to give her a pass on the quote even though it was shit policy but there it is.
Was she misquoted or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:55 AM

32. Yeah, that didn't sound like Hillary.

There's no need to spread rumors about her. She'd never be that tactless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:26 PM

41. Except that she was that tactless (link to screen shot of the 2002 article)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:17 AM

33. Huh? Here's a screenshot of the newspaper article. "Deadbeats".

"Now that we've said these people are no longer deadbeats."

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:11 PM

38. Well, at least they admit that the language and thought is reprehensible.

Mind you, they deny that the article that you link to exists.

So they're right 50% of the time on this, which is pretty damn good as far as DU stats go, don't you think?
So get back on that Hillary bandwagon, pa28, all's good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:34 PM

42. Debunked: People have wrongly claimed Hillary was only referring to "deadbeat dads"

 

So here is the 2002 interview piece cited where she talks about getting deadbeats off welfare, and there is nothing in it about dads or child support enforcement.

Original behind paywall here...
http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/19796257/

But republished in several newspapers and can be found in various online archives like this...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670


Or like this, complete at link but edited for length here by me. And this is not about "deadbeat dads". It is about getting welfare people off the dole and back to being productive:

Clinton finds herself in midst of welfare reform
LINK: http://poststar.com/opinion/commentary/clinton-finds-herself-in-midst-of-welfare-reform/article_599bddbb-686e-5d58-88cd-6a3b8d859e7b.html
April 16, 2002 12:00 am • MARIE COCCO(0) Comments
Newsday

WASHINGTON - This is when the Hillary lore meets Hillary the legislator.

Welfare reform is back.

It was one of those arguments six years ago in which Hillary Rodham Clinton could not catch a break. To the right, she was the shadowy operative of a leftist cabal in the White House, bent on keeping her own husband from fulfilling his promise to end welfare as we know it. To the left she was a traitor, willing to sell out the women and children she professed to care more about.

"There were people in the White House who said, 'just sign anything,' you know," the New York senator said in an interview. "And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay."
...

The welfare rolls have been cut in half. Child poverty has dropped. Poverty overall is down. Work, overall, is up.

"Now that we've said these people are no longer deadbeats - they're actually out there being productive - how do we keep them there?" Clinton said.

Congress must now reauthorize the landmark 1996 legislation...

The former welfare mothers are working. But they are still poor. About a third of those who left welfare report that they shrink their meals - or skip them altogether - because they haven't enough food. Even more say they can't pay the rent or the utility bills every month. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in its annual report on hunger and homelessness, says welfare revision is an engine driving the working poor to the food pantries....


"Now the conversation should be about how do you make work pay? How do you reduce poverty?" the senator said. "Before, it was about this terrible welfare system, and that was a conversation stopper. It just blinded people to what some of the underlying problems were."

The underlying problems are still the underlying problems. Child care for the working poor remains scarce, and scarcely affordable. Transportation to jobs in the suburbs is spotty. State health insurance coverage for poor kids often is unavailable to their mothers, who must, nonetheless, stay healthy to stay at work. And to care for the kids....
...
link: http://poststar.com/opinion/commentary/clinton-finds-herself-in-midst-of-welfare-reform/article_599bddbb-686e-5d58-88cd-6a3b8d859e7b.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:10 PM

45. "Deadbeat dads" or plain ol' "deadbeats", you're beating "dead horses" file it

under "ancient history".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:17 PM

47. Stage 1 - deny

Stage 2 - minimize importance. Stage 3 - date for distance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #47)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:33 PM

50. I'll go with Stage 2, "minimize importance" since "deadbeat gate"

Is on a bullet train to nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:36 PM

52. It's not going anywhere

but it's a meaningful point on her graph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #52)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:44 PM

54. Not "meaningful" in the GE. No republican will play the PC Card.

It's got no legs beyond these DU threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:46 PM

55. It's meaningful to me

as an informed voter in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #55)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:48 PM

57. Oooookay. (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:15 PM

66. Look, we all decide what we most care about

and I am a Clinton supporter, but I also have an interest in knowing the truth as best I can. Here we had a dispute about whether there is an actual quote outside the context of deadbeat dads attributed to Clinton. It seems there is. Though as you know it was some time ago and not her current platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #66)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:08 AM

102. Credit to you...

...for acknowledging the truth that there is indeed a statement Clinton made about deadbeats on welfare that did not refer only to deadbeat dads.

We all need to be ready to acknowledge facts about our candidates. None of them is perfect, not a single one. As you say, we all decide what we most care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #55)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:12 PM

91. It seems to me if it is important to you

You would actually look at the context, rather than just believe some internet poster who has an agenda against Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #91)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:14 PM

93. Explain the context to us, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:24 PM

69. I see. Republicans, the whole clown car, are perfectly in tune with that language.

So that language and attitude is acceptable to you!

Cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #69)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:35 PM

71. I think his point was that it was three decades ago

and not her current platform. Bernie had some questionable language in the past too. I don't see it as relevant to his candidacy today.

Also, I saw you say you are Canadian, so why are you so concerned about how Americans see their Democratic presidential options? I get that you are totally entitled to your opinions. I don't dispute that. I'm just trying to figure out why you would be quite so in the weeds with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #71)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:53 PM

72. It shows a mindset. It's connected her husband's actual policy.

People can change, but not that much, and HRC doesn't show that she's changed very much at all.

USA has immense influence on Canada.
Canada is part of NATO. Our conservative gov't now has us joined with the USA in bombing the ME. I don't like that. It makes me ashamed of Canada. I'm working to get rid of that conservative gov't. It *will* shortly happen. Watch for the news this coming October. Canada is part of the TPP. I'm not against trade deals - they're necessary, but I don't like the extreme secrecy, and esp. so when Harper is the one acquiescing to the terms. Doubly creepy. A lot of our issues dovetail and the sheer stupidity of a lot of US politics scares me. Like a total inability to understand what an universal health care system is and how it positively impacts communities. Endless war.

Do you enjoy Sid Dithers? George II? Do you complain about their input? I bet not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #72)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:57 PM

73. It wasn't a complaint

George is American and Sid doesn't get into the weeds like you do. I thought I made quite clear I don't dispute your right to an opinion or to share it here. I was simply curious as to why you care so much. You explained that. However, I don't think you'll find Bernie's foreign policy the great alternative you're hoping for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #73)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:25 PM

76. I realize that Bernie's foreign policy is nearly identical to all the others, D and R.

Different personalities, different nuance, but the same basic substance.
But the nuance matters.
E.g., Pres. Obama follows Pres. Bush in WoT, from what I see there's seemingly no real change. Same PNAC program delivered the destruction of Libya (now a hotbed of terror), regime change and destruction of Syria (now a hotbed of terror), Afghanistan war out of the news but still chugging along, proxy bombing of Yemen, ... BUT, e.g. Pres. Obama brokered a deal with Iran, as is in the news now, and NO OTHER president would have done that, D or R. And I include HRC in that assessment. So a certain nuance, an ability to push back, to think beyond the moment, has a positive consequence. That's why I joined the whole world of "progressives" and so-called "moderates" in cheering Obama's victories, esp. in '08 and also in '12. I put no such hope in HRC. None.
Likewise the very existence of Pres. Obama is a triumph, regardless of whatever D or R might say about how the problem of racism is "just the same", the very existence of Pres. Obama shows that there's been movement - glacially slow, but there. And that's important.

So nuance matters. Just getting a decent platform out there, mentioned even in passing, matters.

I like what I've been hearing of O'Malley. Not all, but ... I wish he was getting more traction.

(eta: the reason that you know that I'm Canadian is because I've been careful to put that disclaimer on so many of my posts, so it's known that I'm sensitive to the fact that my interlocutor has every right to reject my opinion for that reason.)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #76)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:59 PM

89. You're simply wrong that Obama is a neocon or like them

Though the US is indeed an empire and has long had a muscular foreign policy abroad. History shows there is little difference between parties in that regard. However, Libya and Iraq were very different situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #89)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:14 PM

92. I disagree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #71)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:04 PM

83. in what way does Sanders' "questionable language" relate to policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:03 PM

82. and this ain't the GE..

you may want to hold off on the swearing-in ceremony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:24 PM

49. Point made

I appreciate your looking for the original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:48 PM

56. You are simply wrong.

"Now that we've said these people are no longer deadbeats - they're actually out there being productive - how do we keep them there?" Clinton said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #56)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:56 PM

59. How is he wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #59)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:11 PM

63. The OP found another, separate context in which Hillary used the word deadbeat.

Sure, we've all heard of deadbeat dads, and her brother has been among those numbers. But the OP to which this one is a response did not reference that context. She was talking about welfare reform and coping with poverty.

But you knew that. this article It was one of those arguments six years ago in which Hillary Rodham Clinton could not catch a break.

Please note that the quote was six years prior to the 2002 article. So she said it in, what, 1996? Her record is long, and by the nature of political back-biting, not always flattering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #63)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:13 PM

65. I see

So she said the quote separate from deadbeat dads, or the paper claimed she did, but it wasn't in 2002. Is that what you are saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:17 PM

67. I'm saying the OP is an exercise in prestidigitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:13 PM

46. Buzzfeed quoted a 2002 article. You linked to a couple of 2000 articles. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #46)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:01 PM

61. Tomatoes, tomaaatoes the "controversy" is ancient history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #61)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:19 PM

68. So an article about tomatoes in 2000 is identical to an article in 2002 about rocks?

 


Both articles using the word "ground" does not mean they are talking about the same thing.

Likewise, an article quoting Hillary about deadbeat dads in 2000 has no bearing on an article quoting Hillary about "deadbeats" on welfare in 2002. Same word, but two completely different articles quoting her about two completely different sets of people.

This may be a very small "controversy", but that doesn't mean people get to lie about it. And the OP here is either confused or lying.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #68)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:30 PM

70. Yeah that's the thing.

Did she misspeak? Was she misquoted? If so make that case. Either own it or apologize for it. But don't lie about it. I don't even care if she actually said it because my assumption was that she slipped out a dumb phrase she didn't mean. What bothers me a hell of a lot more is her support of the actual policy. And attempt to make it seem like she didn't say something which she clearly did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:22 PM

48. Thank you for the research, Cerridwen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:32 PM

80. Here is some better research which proves the OP wrong. Hillary did call poor people deadbeats.

Here is a link to the 2002 article where she calls welfare recipients 'deadbeats'.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:35 PM

51. K and R--and thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #51)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:30 PM

78. Thanks for what? Misinformation? The OP has been debunked

Here is a link to the 2002 article where she calls welfare recipients 'deadbeats'.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #78)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:08 PM

84. this is simply amazing to behold..

fingers in ears, and chanting la-la-la-la-la. this OP debunked jack crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:03 PM

62. Yes. She most certainly did. You quoted an *entirely different* article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:23 PM

75. Thanks for clarifying

 

KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #75)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:29 PM

77. The OP has been thoroughly debunked

Here is a link to the 2002 article where she calls welfare recipients 'deadbeats'.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 11:09 AM

105. Kick & Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:39 AM

106. What about this?

In an April 2002 interview with the Gettysburg Times, then-Senator Clinton reiterated the impetus behind her husband’s effort to “substitute dignity for dependence.” At the time, Congress was considering the reauthorization the 1996 law.

“There were people in the White House who said, ‘just sign anything,’ you know,’ the New York senator said in an interview. ‘And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay.’”

In that same interview, Clinton also said that people who had moved from welfare to work were “no longer deadbeats.”

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”


http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfare#.idnE7ajgq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread