HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HillareeeHillaraah » Journal
Page: 1

HillareeeHillaraah

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: New York
Home country: USA
Current location: New York
Member since: Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:22 PM
Number of posts: 685

Journal Archives

Technically, Bernie Sanders isn't running for President

Not at this stage at least. Right now Sanders is running to be elected the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. That's traditionally what each party calls their ultimate nominee. After securing the nomination, then you're running for President.

The candidates' main objective at this stage is to speak to democrats. To convince democrats. To win over democrats. To be elected head of the Democratic Party. That's the race we're in now.

You don't endear yourself to democrats by belittling the pro choice conversation. It's a key point of our platform.

You don't gain influence among our party's leaders by harassing our super delegates to instead support the candidate with fewer popular votes, fewer pledged delegates, fewer endorsements, fewer states won, and less cash on hand (who also happens to be behind in the national polls.)

You don't convince democrats to vote for you if you have little to no concern about down ticket candidates. Democrats know it takes a village to run a country.

Hillary gets this. Hillary is a Democrat in name and deeds. Sanders? Not so much.

But I am a big "D" Democrat. And if Sanders were to be elected leader of my party I would vote for him. Not because I agree with his methods and plans but because of that whole "village" thing. We need as many elected dems as we can get to make gains in this country.

(Although, four years of having to see that foamy spittle coagulate on his lower lip whenever he rages will be a tough four years, still I would support him. I'd close my eyes and pull the lever for Sanders. Well, no I'd open my eyes first to make sure I'm pulling the right lever...but you know where I'm going with this.)

The back-to-back interviews of Sanders and Clinton last night with Rachel on MSNBC made it clear yet again. She's the Democrat best suited to be the next leader of our party.

Hillary 2016: Great Form, No Foam <----------- ( think it will catch on as a campaign slogan?)




Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:37 AM (19 replies)

Hillary Supporters Speaking Up and Out

It's been noted often that the volume of online support voiced by Bernie Followers vs. Clinton Fans clearly leans heavily toward the former.

Yet we are out there and in greater numbers than Sanders supporters. Her winning metrics back that assertion. Still, we're so vastly out-posted online.

Does he have a hired army of prolific posters or is Camp Clinton just a quieter crew ( present group not withstanding )

This from an article on HuffPost


I had a number of conversations with Clinton supporters this weekend (on the phone and in private messages; not on public Facebook pages) in which all parties involved admitted to being reticent to speak up for her in public because to do so means having to endure battering by #FeeltheBerners. One mentioned feeling that the sheer fanaticism and idealization of Sanders supporters has made it impossible to have an adult conversation without triggering a kind of cultish backlash... which I too have experienced (similar to the way Scientologists respond when one suggests L.Ron Hubbard is not a god). Another said sheís going to quietly vote, quietly share her Clinton support with those who ask, but is not going to throw it out there for public consumption. I donít blame her, I donít blame any of them... one supports Clinton at their own peril.

But Iím done being quiet. Not that Iíve been all that quiet, but Iíve been kinda quiet. Certainly quieter than the #feeltheberners in my midst!




An interesting read worth clicking on...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/why-clinton-supporters-ne_b_9554372.html
Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:27 AM (15 replies)

Well THAT story just writes itself

Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 09:42 AM (6 replies)

5:45 am est here at DU ....

And not a single POSITIVE article or link for the Democratic party's LEADING candidate on Home page. The candidate with the most votes, most delegates, most endorsements, most super delegates, most editorial endorsements.....and nothing good to be said at DU's front door.

I've been a reader for years, only recently started posting. For the life of me, I don't understand what this site's about any more.

It reads more and more like the anti-democratic underground to me...



Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:54 AM (28 replies)

Meanwhile at Trump's rally in Orlando...

Trump has the crowd pledge to vote for him no matter what.....

The optics, Donald...intentional?

Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:43 PM (6 replies)

Hillary, Walmart and some context





Why didn't Hillary Clinton have a greater influence over this board?

Why didn't the lone liberal on a board of 14 powerfully conservative southern men circa 1986 manage to change their vehemently anti-union stance?

For me, as a woman, the story of her time on that board almost tells itself from that photo.

Some context: 39 year old Hillary Clinton was appointed to the Board because Sam Walton's wife insisted they needed a woman. Clinton was their second choice.

íShe was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,Ē one member said. ďIt would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.íĒ


She made her time on that board about pushing environmental issues and about pushing Walton to place more women in management roles in the company. In 1985 there was not a single woman officer among the total of 42 Walmart officers. In fact, Hillary greatly irritated Walton with her insistence he place qualified women in managerial positions. By all accounts she was a thorn in Sam Waltons side.

Further,

Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the companyís board. Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features."



Yes she was paid the same $18,000 per year that all the other board members were paid. Surely, no one is suggesting that a woman's labor should be free?

Yes she at one time had $100,000 in Walmart stock -- Walmart employees had the ability to purchase subsidized stock options. Surely you're not against Walmart employees, working their way up in the company and having that benefit or is it just this one Walmart board member who shouldn't? The stock went into a blind trust during their years in the White House, as is customary.

So she doesn't pass the progressive purity test. Many don't. I'd bet there's little to be said of Susan Sarandon's Tylenol paycheck or her L'oreal gig - Despite Johnson and Johnson's position on GMOs, and L'oreal's position on animal testing and their huge factory in Indonesia where workers rights are barely existent. Or How about Tad Devine's prior work with Monsanto? They are still held up as proper progressives.

Really hard to pass that progressive purity test...

I think what matters is what are you fighting for today? What is your vision today? How will we move forward today?

And why wouldn't we want someone from our side in the room where it happens? What power do you have sitting outside the door?


Quotes are from In Sam We Trust by Bob Ortega via thepeoplesview.net




Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:52 AM (21 replies)

Depends on your perspective...

Who, as a worker, had a better day?

The people with jobs who cut Hillary's hair and received part of $1200 or

That one guy who cut Bernie's hair and made maybe $20-$25.

What I see is Hillary put $1200 back into the economy. Bernie put about $25 back into the economy.

When people SPEND money that's GOOD for working people: from the guy who ran the elevator to the security people, the person who sweeps the floors, the person who washes her hair....those are jobs!! ordinary people jobs!

So really, what's the horrible thing Hillary did there?

Posted by HillareeeHillaraah | Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:49 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1