2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Hole in Hillary’s Flip-Flop Excuse
She keeps saying new information makes her change her mind on policy. But what new information?
Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and some believe her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a flip, too.
Everybody agrees that changing facts can justify a change in ones view. But Clintons insistence that learning about new or better information propels her reassessments prompts this question: What was the new information?
To my knowledge, no new information about gay marriage emerged from the day she endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples to the day she demanded the right to same-sex marriage. The immigration, gun control and mass-incarceration issues have been similarly unrippled by shocking new findings. Likewise, the information required to make a stand against the Iraq War was not hidden. Other senators found it and took that position! Perhaps the anti-war information escaped Clintons noticein which case, bad on heror perhaps she viewed it and decided not to act on itin which case, double-bad on her. And who among us had a better vantage from which to assemble an encyclopedic view on the Trans-Pacific Partnership than Clinton? She praised it endlessly while secretary of state, but pulled a moonshiners turn last week to skedaddle away from it.
If Clinton lived in Gobles, Michigan, had no library card and no Internet connection, we could accept her new-information excuse. But for the past 25 years, Clinton has had some of the best researchers at her disposala private staff, a campaign staff, the wizards at the State Department staff, a senatorial staff, the busy beavers from the Congressional Research Service and the White House staff. And, in fact, every indication and story we know about Hillary Clintons policy work belabors just how much she studies and learns. So if new or better information has been the impetus for her policy shifts, she must concede that she has a fat history of taking the wrong position in the early going and then requiring a re-do. The constant need for re-dos appears to indicate that shed make a lousy surgeon and a bad 3 a.m. president.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-flip-flop-213247#ixzz3qumxy6T2
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Autumn
(44,686 posts)and the morphing by them of 9/11 and Iraq. We knew. If we knew and understood what their game was, a Senator who is privy to more information than we had to have known it also. The Iraq war vote was politically expedient for Hillary. The loss of life from that one action, theirs and ours is the stain that blots out and covers all else.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Damm the innocents who lost their lives
Autumn
(44,686 posts)It was so horrifying to watch all that. Knowing what the Bush administration was doing and wondering why the leaders at that time were covering their eyes to the madness.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)the control and reduce the salaries of the Mexican workers in their nationalized Oil Industry, in order to help in the turn over, to the Mexican 1%, foreign investors and foreign fossil energy companies. We did not hear about that step Right from the corporate media. That was done by Clinton using US State Department diplomacy instead of shock and awe warring. She is the fulcrum of the pitchfork. Sanders is the fulcrum of the voters and grassroots movers.
In my opinion she represents privatizers for profiteering, and can not flip-flop over to government regulation. Re-regulation means to be in keeping with the needs of Americans, not the needs of the wealthy, world corporate TPPers. The wealthy need Hillary Clinton only to keep the pitchforks from coming out. She has and will flip-flop on everything except keeping Wall Street in check. IMO, Clinton will take a step farther Right if she becomes President. During the last Debate, she said that she would take Obama's policies and plans a little deeper. IMO, the third way has already extended the New hand, and with Hillary, a visual public step to the Right, would be coming, and will be televised by corporate media. After the Nov 2004 elections, in a publicly televised speech, Bush said that the American people gave him a green light to do anything he pleased.
Adding on edit: Above, I wrote that Clinton can not flip from privatization to government re-regulation, That is why she cannot say that she has a policy to reinstate Glass-Steagall. IMO she must be lying about her now non-support of the TPP. She is putting off having Plans because you cannot serve two masters; the 1% and the People. Her fence riding is crumbling here on DU too.
Please see the links that I have added in a down thread reply. I waited one day before adding, because I wanted to see if the fence 1% would like to fence from this Reply. They seem to be missing. Lately they come in at the end of a long thread.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)got a link for that
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I did not check to see if it supported the claims above.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/07/hillary-clinton-state-department-emails-mexico-energy-reform-revolving-door
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I see the world as you do, at least what you discussed in your post.
I hadn't heard about the issue of the Mexican oil workers' salaries, if you post a follow-up or link I would like to read up on it.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Hope you can read several of these:
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrSbgcblEBWIpgAehKl87UF;_ylc=X1MDOTU4MTA0NjkEX3IDMgRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDVldVc3J3aVJTUEdyeVlWY3lHSXFFQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzEEcHFzdHIDSGlsbGFyeSBjbGludG9uIGFuBHBxc3RybAMxOARxc3RybAM3NARxdWVyeQNIaWxsYXJ5IENsaW50b24gYW5kIHRoZSBQcml2YXRpemF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBNZXhpY2FuIE5hdGlvbmFsIE9pbCBJbmR1c3RyeQR0X3N0bXADMTQ0NzA3MjgwNA--?p=Hillary+Clinton+and+the+Privatization+of+the+Mexican+National+Oil+Industry&fr=sfp&fr2=sa-gp-search&iscqry=
Here is one, from the search link above, with Abby Martin:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Hilary-Clinton-Pushed-Mexicos-Oil-Privatization-20150810-0011.html
snip
The country's hydrocarbons have been constitutionally managed by the state-owned company, Pemex since 1938, after the Mexican oil expropriation.
The website identifies three U.S. officials as being key in this process of pushing for an opening of Mexicos energy sector: David Goldwyn, the first U.S. International Energy Coordinator who was named by Clinton in 200; Carlos Pascual, Goldwyn's successor and former U.S. ambassador to Mexico; as well as Neil Brown, a former top-level staffer for Senator Richard Lugar.
Mexico officials remain extremely sensitive about any public especially US comments regarding energy reform and production, reads a February 2010 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, prior to a visit to the country by Goldwyn. We should retain the (U.S. government's) long-standing policy of not commenting publicly on these issues while quietly offering to provide assistance in areas of interest to the (Mexican government).
This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Hilary-Clinton-Pushed-Mexicos-Oil-Privatization-20150810-0011.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The minions swallowed it. Everyone else rolled their eyes and filed it under, "pandering example number 832"
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Faux pas
(14,562 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)No real stances, no real morals, just an undying hunger for power.
My psychologist wife says there is a term for that kind of personality.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)a person to seek more of that same abuse - and we all know its coming
99Forever
(14,524 posts)There really is no rational answer to your question.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)than simply being the forgiving wife of a sex-addicted pres.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)My politically astute pappy (RIP) said of Hillary years ago, "She's VERY ambitious."
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)It's all about winning at any cost. That's why she doesn't have a clear platform and why she is continually evolving. She's for whatever it takes to win.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Its goes deeper than though, more of cynical position taken. It's one where the ideals are of that; nobody will notice, nobody of influence will care, nobody will be able to put two and two together to see why it's wrong, the few that it might hurt will not be able to reciprocate or respond to it, or then lastly if all else fails, one will acknowledge it and push it away like it's old news.
It all was a calculated set of moves to get the largest pool to draw from to help in the ascending up the ladder.
My biggest problem with mostly all of it is that it's not original, inventive or even offering up much of an alternative view. In other words, even a fool could guess the next move from the current trajectory. That not be a leader of any sort, that's just being a cog in a machine. It also doesn't inspire me much
AikenYankee
(135 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Sounds like the tittle of a country song. Someone should compose it and give it to HRC as her campaign tune.
Paka
(2,760 posts)"just an undying hunger for power." She will stop at nothing in her quest to be President.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but it's not science, and it's not 'new information', it's political expediency, calculated
to erase -- as much as possible -- ANY difference between her and Sanders on issues
many Progressive voters care deeply about.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)I would add that I don't think the 1%er has changed her mind on any of these important issues...she simply SAYS she has "evolved"...Bullshit...
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,896 posts)(or other similar intel) that tells her the other side of the issue is better for her politically.
So - it is accurate to say she is changing her position based on new information. It is just not the kind of new information she is implying.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)be good for her campaign?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)to support her.
Is she a Democrat, or, a disenfranchised republican?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)like the article says....when there is new info or results don't pan out...
And everyone can do it.
But "serial evolving".... again and again... at convenient times....
And remember, the position changed FROM was also politically expedient at its time.
It's just too much.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)As you say, it is about trust (or TRUST)....and always has been, which is why Clinton has been reinforcing that trust and winning the party polling.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/27/clinton-hits-lows-on-favorability-trustworthiness-in-poll/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/poll-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-trustworthy/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-liar-factor-2016-213100
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/30/voters-want-someone-who-is-honest-and-trustworthy-in-2016-they-dont-think-thats-hillary-clinton/
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trustworthy-honest-2015-7
http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
I'd say you've got an uphill battle to get your meme off the ground.
azureblue
(2,122 posts)and the responses and the word "Specious" applies to all. Hyperbole and conjecture, along with much mind reading, too. And a lot of verbal whacking off. You want to support your candidate? Do so by comparing how he or she is more qualified to address issues that are critical to America and back them up with reasoning and facts.
To deconstruct:
"She keeps saying new information makes her change her mind on policy. But what new information?
Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and some believe her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a flip, too"
Yep. Some of us learn from our mistakes, correct them and move forward. Maybe you don't. Besides, when you link to politico, you blow your creds right out of the water
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But unlike Hillary, hundreds of thousands of people don't die when you and I make a mistake. Do you want the person making decisions about your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren to learn as they go? You set the bar pretty low for someone you wish to place in a position to do that over and over again. Basing decisions of that scale on politics is wrong and never justifiable.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
That's exactly what the OP does. It gives examples of how Clinton has a history of taking wrong positions, even though the information leading to a better conclusion was available to her at the time. That's a reason to prefer candidates who do better at getting it right initially. The Presidency doesn't offer an unlimited scope for do-overs.
You also write, as to her flip-flops:
That's what she did as to Iraq. I give her some credit for, however belatedly, recognizing a mistake. On other issues, though, she has NOT admitted a past mistake. Instead, as the OP correctly states, she's tried to pass it off as new information. The TPP is a good example. She was an ardent cheerleader for it. Then, in the campaign, faced with an unexpectedly strong challenge from her left, she switched. She tried to pass off her change as being based on the new information of the final text, but she hadn't even seen the final text. Furthermore, AFAIK she's never explained what was supposedly different between the version she endorsed and the version she opposed.
She would have more credibility if she'd said, "When we were negotiating this in secret I thought it was a good idea. Over the last couple years, though, after I left government, some late-stage drafts have been leaked and have been analyzed by various NGOs, like the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Medecins sans Frontieres. They've pointed out considerations I'd overlooked before, so I now think that the version I called the "gold standard" was actually a bad idea." That would've been better than her falsely stating that she had merely said she hoped it could be the gold standard, and falsely implying that her change of position was based on changes reflected in the final text.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)The latest public opinion polls, what else?
Now, where did that weather vane go?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)People have digested her positions and are still supporting her 2:1
All this is a waste of perfectly good electrons on the internet.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I doubt most people polled who said they would vote for Clinton could name her positions.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)You live in an echo chamber because, If you think for a minute she will win the GE your nuttier than, well than Ben Carson....
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)if you subscribe to the notion of scientific polls
Otherwise, you're welcome to believe Bernie is winning all 50 states
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Her down our throats? She is so flawed as a candidate.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)In the end, politics is just a business. And national politics is Big Business, sadly.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)Great graphic. Thanks!
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)wins the Primary she will change them all back again.... and believe me many here will cheer her for it...
Depaysement
(1,835 posts). . . was new polling.
Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
PatrickforO
(14,479 posts)She should just say, "You know, I really want to be president because I think I could be a very good one. But I've discovered the American people are waking up to issues that most of us have ignored in Washington up until now. So, I've changed a bunch of my positions because I see now that I was wrong. I promise that if you vote for me I will do my very best to represent the real interests of the American people."
I think it might make a difference. Or maybe not. Our political 'game' is based on fabrications, half-truths, secrecy and downright lies. Most cannot change or will not.
That's why I am supporting Bernie Sanders because with him you don't have to worry about that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sorry, but thinking people can't support Hillary.
Who knows what you are supporting when you do?
treestar
(82,383 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I think she had time to get her positions fight last April. Her TPP and XL flops were only changes she made running into the debate because she didn't want those questions on the table.
And it worked. Sanders and O'Malley actually had to bring it up in their answers to other questions during the debate. There wasn't much time spent on trade or the environment.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If everyone were so rigid, nothing would ever advance.
If everyone who opposed gay marriage in 1980 had to continue to still oppose it lest they flip flop, we would not have gay marriage now.
The TPP is complex and she did not flip flop, she said it was not as good as she wanted.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)We can't afford to have someone that makes decisions as President, only to say that new information shows they were wrong after they leave office.
I mean that's what you are arguing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)a know-it-all.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)But that is just spin. The thing actually got IMPROVED in early October to cut the patent protections on medications to less time than the US was trying to negotiate. Basically, if you take her at her word, she must have therefore liked it BETTER when there were stronger protections for big pharmacuitical companies that would have made medications more expensive. Granted it is still bad, but it has always been bad, even when she was trumpeting it's "gold standard."
She merely put out her statement a few weeks before the debate because the unions were steaming mad at the TPP. Either she negotiated this pact and managed to know nothing about it, or this was an entirely cynical act.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Why has Hillary been wrong on all of those until just recently?
Come on.
treestar
(82,383 posts)congrats!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Dodo
(39 posts)for her campaign.