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

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
147. there is PLENTY more of her record there....YOU guys cannot keep lying about her record....
Thu Jan 22, 2015, 07:35 PM
Jan 2015

besides....REAL Democrats see right through you....have you seen all the latest polls? If you haven't I can show you those too....

I started with A...for Abortion....
but lets go to Issue Number 2 on that list now shall we? Budget and Economy....

We need bankruptcy reform, but we need the right kind

In the Senate, Clinton voted for an overhaul to the bankruptcy system that would have made debt forgiveness more difficult for borrowers to obtain. She said in 2008 that she regretted the vote, but it still could become a sticking point, as it did when she faced off with then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
The credit card lobby pushed hard for the legislation, which did not prevail when Clinton voted for it in 2001, but did become law after another attempt by Congress in 2005. (Clinton did not vote in that round, telling reporters she missed the vote to be with Bill Clinton after his heart surgery.)
"The right kind of reform is necessary," Clinton said in a press release about the legislation in 2001. "We're on our way toward that goal, and I hope we can achieve final passage of a good bankruptcy reform bill this year"
During her initial presidential campaign, she said she would have voted against the 2005 bill that eventually passed.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014
1998: Personally lobbied Congress against bankruptcy bill

In 1998 I had met with First Lady Hillary Clinton to discuss the proposed bankruptcy legislation, and after our meeting she had declared that she would fight on behalf of working families, against "that awful bill." Now the president was under enormous pressure from the banks to sign the bill, but in the last days of his presidency, urged on by his wife, President Clinton stood strong with struggling families. With no public fanfare, he vetoed the industry's bill.
In "Living History," Hillary writes, "proposed bankruptcy reform moving through Congress threatened to undermine the spousal and child support many women depend on." The New York Times also reported: "[Mrs. Clinton] wrote dozens of personal notes to lawmakers last year as the [bankruptcy] bills made their torturous way through the Congressional process. And she, along with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), played what the bill's opponents say was a decisive role in helping to kill the legislation last year."
Source: A Fighting Chance, by Elizabeth Warren, p. 65&288 , Apr 22, 2014
The economy is not working for middle class families

Tonight President Bush claimed that the state of our union is strong. But for too many American families, the true “state of their lives” is one of economic anxiety and uncertainty.
After seven years of stagnant wages, declining incomes and increasing inequality, our families are working harder and harder and still falling behind. President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families. Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same--a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving 21st century economy to the brink of recession.
We need a President who understands the urgent economic challenges our families face and who will work as hard for middle-class families as they work for America. I intend to be that President for the American people.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address , Jan 28, 2008
Look back to 1990s to see how I’d be fiscally responsible

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Well, fiscal responsibility is a very high priority for me. We don’t have to go back very far in our history, in fact just to the 1990s, to see what happens when we do have a fiscally responsible budget that does use rules of discipline to make sure that we’re not cutting taxes or spending more than we can afford. I will institute those very same approaches. You can’t do it in a year. It’ll take time. But the economy will grow again when we start acting fiscally responsible. And then we can save money in the government by cutting out private contractors, closing loopholes, getting the health care system to be more efficient. We’ll do all of this at the same time, but the results will take awhile for us to actually see.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages

Families are struggling with rising costs and falling wages. They’re working harder than ever in the last six years. Productivity has gone up 18%, but the average family income has fallen $1,300. We have now more than 45 million people living without health care, and millions more who are underinsured. We have 12 million children living in poverty. We have more people going bankrupt last year than graduating from college. Yet these are all invisible to the president and his administration.
And we know that for those who worry about passing on this huge debt that has been blown up in the last six years--because remember, six years ago we had a balanced budget and a surplus--well, if you’re a grandparent worried about passing that debt on to your grandchildren, you’re invisible.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
2000: Eight years of a great economy is not enough

"My opponent goes around saying, '8 years is enough,'" Hillary said on October 22. "The first time I heard it, I thought, well, maybe I had misheard. 8 years of a great economy. 8 years of declining crime rates. 8 years of improving education scores. 8 years of expanding health care. Where is he living and who is he representing?"
Source: What A Party!, by Terry McAuliffe, p.238 , Jan 23, 2007
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005

While opposing tax cuts, Clinton has supported hundreds of bills boosting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. During her first two years in office, Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.
In 2003 and 2004 Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers’ dollars. She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most “expensive” senator during that time.
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 55-56 , Oct 11, 2006
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium

Q: Should taxpayer money should be used to build such a stadium in Manhattan?
CLINTON: I don’t think that’s a good use of that space or of taxpayer dollars. There is work we need to do to upgrade the infrastructure. That’s why I support the Second Avenue subway. That’s why I support the East Side connector, a rail link to La Guardia and to JFK. I will go to the Senate to continue the work on Penn Station and others that Senator Moynihan has started.
LAZIO: I think it’s important to get the Jets and Giants back. This is not just a plan for a stadium; it’s also a plan for expansion of convention space. I don’t think this should be funded with public money entirely. But I believe that this is an important initiative to build jobs for New York.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget

Q: How will you pay for all the new programs you’ve proposed?
A: We have a surplus after 7 years of good economic leadership in our country. We should pay down the national debt, secure Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and provide affordable tax cuts. I have been very careful to cost out my plan because I believe in a balanced budget. That’s why I reject the large tax cut that independent experts have said is more than a trillion dollars that my opponent has proposed.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY , Sep 13, 2000
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy

Q: Americans spend millions at the local casino in Niagara Falls, Canada. Why not have a casino built on this side of the border to help our economy?
LAZIO: I don’t believe that it’s a good idea for us to be building casinos. I would allow the state of New York to make these decisions. But in the end, I’m not a big fan of gambling. Economic development in the area is an important issue, but I would not focus on the quick hit, the cheap hit in gambling. I’d focus on the kind of jobs where our children can afford to stay here, raise a family, buy their own home.
CLINTON: I know how hard the people in Niagara are working to try to turn their economy around, and if they believe that a casino would help attract more tourists back, I would support that. I leave that to their judgment. But there has to be more of a strategy about the upstate economy --tax credits to help jobs be created, creating the regional skills, alliances, commitment to work force development, etc.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY , Sep 13, 2000
Protect next generation by paying off national debt

We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create. Franklin Roosevelt said that Americans of his generation had a rendezvous with destiny. Well, I think our generation has a rendezvous with responsibility. It’s time to protect the next generation by using our budget surplus to pay down the national debt, save Social Security, modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, & provide targeted tax cuts to the families who need them most.
Source: Address to the Democratic National Convention , Aug 14, 2000
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods

We have lived with the benefits, for 50 years now, of the agreements that were made at the end of WWII, coming out of Bretton Woods to create new financial architectures. Today, we have outlived the usefulness of that particular set of arrangements. And we now have to face up to creating a new architecture that will help us tackle runaway global capitalism’s worst effects; ensure social safety nets for the most vulnerable; address the debt burden that is crushing many of our poorest nations.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France , Jun 17, 1999
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens

Some think that the market can do anything if left alone. Others undermine the benefits that free enterprise brings. We have to create a balance. How do we enjoy the benefits without suffering from the excesses? The economy can create the jobs... and wealth; it can create consumers and the producers of goods. But the economy cannot create citizens. Government can only respond to citizens, not create them. Only civil society can do that. And it is time for us to renew and expand civil society.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France , Jun 17, 1999
Invest in people instead of “smokestack chasing”

Remember what we thought of as economic development. “Smokestack chasing” is what it was called. If we could convince someone to get out of old dying Detroit and move to Arkansas, we were going to be moving right along. We have seen how many of those industries that we got to move from Detroit have moved to Bangladesh. We have seen that economic development cannot depend on what kind of jobs we bring as much as on what we do to invest in our people to generate more of our own economic opportunities.
Source: Unique Voice, p. 43-44 , Feb 3, 1997
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%

Clinton and Obama battled over their votes on bankruptcy bills and an amendment to cap interest charged on credit. Clinton said, “There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling: to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. I voted for limiting to 30% what credit card companies could charge. Senator Obama did not.” Obama responded, “I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling.”
Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. When the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. As for whether the 30% cap was too high, that’s certainly a matter of opinion.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate , Jan 21, 2008
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter

Clinton also said she had opposed the overall bankruptcy bill, which made it more difficult for consumers to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy; Obama opposed it, too. She didn’t vote on the final bill, which passed by a 74-25 vote, because it was the day of her husband’s heart surgery.
Obama mischaracterized Clinton’s comments on her vote for an earlier, 2001 bankruptcy bill. Obama said, “Sen. Clinton said she voted for [the 2001 bill] but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.“
That’s not exactly what Clinton said. When asked if she regretted voting for the 2001 bill, Clinton answered, ”Sure I do. It never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with. I was happy it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate , Jan 21, 2008
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders

OBAMA: When we talked a while back, we talked about the bankruptcy bill, which had been pushed by the banks and the financial institutions, that said, basically, it will be harder for folks who have been lured into these teaser rates and then see their credit cards go up to 30%, that they would have a tougher time getting out of bankruptcy. In the last debate, Clinton said she voted for it but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.
CLINTON: I regretted voting for the bankruptcy bill and I was happy that it didn’t get into law. By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. There was a particular amendment that is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.
Source: [Xref Obama] 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. debate , Jan 21, 2008
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.

Congressional Summary:
Supplemental appropriations for:
Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
Clean Water (EPA)
Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
Energy Development (DOE)
Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
Temporary Increase in Food Assistance
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41): Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.
It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.
Reference: Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act; Bill S.3604&HR7110 ; vote number 2008-S206 on Sep 26, 2008
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.

Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.

Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932 ; vote number 2005-363 on Dec 21, 2005
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.

Clinton co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages
Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.
One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:
realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.
It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.
In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.
Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy.

Clinton co-sponsored reforming mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy
Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - refinance mortgages originally financed through a qualified subprime loan.
Makes FY2008 appropriations for emergency needs of states and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for foreclosure mitigation activities.
Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 - Authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. Creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.
Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of a consumer.
Source: Foreclosure Prevention Act (S.2636) 2008-S2636 on Feb 13, 2008


I CAN keep this up so....

Lets be honest.....that is completely FALSE! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #1
No, it's pretty dead-on! Roland99 Jan 2015 #18
Utter Cowpie! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #24
HRC on TPP Roland99 Jan 2015 #25
Not nearly enough....lets check what the voting record says shall we? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #26
On economic measures she is strongly in the negative (-5), another wall street cheerleader. arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #38
You are misreading it too.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #41
Call me ignorant, that's fair because I am trying to understand those arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #48
actions speak louder than words, especially campaign words. we know what she's done, and ND-Dem Jan 2015 #68
That's some rhetoric I consider to be bigoted bullshit. First off Hillary was highly opposed to Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #88
She's more progressive than many other possible candidates, such as Joe Biden and Jim Webb. pnwmom Jan 2015 #55
Jim Webb I would definitely agree with, Joe Biden I can't. nt arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #67
that's like saying except for 9-11 Bush kept us safe AtomicKitten Jan 2015 #72
One question, if you think she's all that why would you support her if she is nominated? Autumn Jan 2015 #2
No...A Republican wouldn't nominate non-psychopaths to the Supreme Court. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #4
Let's be honest...I HRC was so bad....why will Bernie Sanders not only vote for her.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #3
Lesser-evilism. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #6
He does? REALLY NOW? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #7
I guess there's nothing in the DU rules that prevents you from posting the identical thing a million tularetom Jan 2015 #29
Not when it is the TRUTHFUL record of a respected Democrat...no its not... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #30
that's not her record. ND-Dem Jan 2015 #69
Yes it is....would you like me to show you? Because I most certainly can.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #105
I believe it's 'votematch's' categorization and evaluation of her record, ND-Dem Jan 2015 #106
You want the quotes? ....Good thanks! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #110
thanks for the spam. and just as i thought, it's not her record. ND-Dem Jan 2015 #111
WTH is wrong with you ...that IS her record.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #112
it's how she was rated by organizations using their own classification system, their own selection ND-Dem Jan 2015 #114
No my friend...it is NOT....it is summarized....but IT IS her record...and there is plenty more VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #115
Here just on abortion alone... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #113
Go for it. You picked her centerpiece issue for liberal credibility, one I'd argue she isn't amazing TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #146
there is PLENTY more of her record there....YOU guys cannot keep lying about her record.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #147
Bless you, Vanilla R Hekate Jan 2015 #117
You are welcome....I always did like a good fight! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #118
just like there's nothing in DU rules that prevents posting the same BS about Hillary a million wyldwolf Jan 2015 #37
I looked again just to be sure tularetom Jan 2015 #44
though I was replying TO you, it wasn't ABOUT you wyldwolf Jan 2015 #46
Let's be honest. Collecting 'dittos' gives you an ego boost wyldwolf Jan 2015 #5
No, my ego doesn't enter into this at all. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #9
Historical revisionists and psychics like yourself don't 'bother me.' They AMUSE me. wyldwolf Jan 2015 #39
I'm no historical revisionist. I lived through the Nineties. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #71
you constantly revise history to fit your view. Reference our RFK discussion downthread. wyldwolf Jan 2015 #74
I refuted your claim about RFK in my response to it. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #97
No you didn't. As usual, and like now, you're posting a bunch of opinions. wyldwolf Jan 2015 #101
Vote for the candidate of your choice. Adrahil Jan 2015 #76
+1 LordGlenconner Jan 2015 #43
What a bunch of utter baloney. greatlaurel Jan 2015 #8
Lyndon Johnson was doomed to lose if renominated in 1968. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #10
How about if we give her a fully Democratic sweep ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #11
Not to the professional curmudgeons! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #13
I'm for working for that anyway. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #16
The President doesn't write the legislation ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #22
she will likely be Obama 2. nt msongs Jan 2015 #12
and you have a problem with that? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #15
successful for who? ND-Dem Jan 2015 #120
by anyone's standards....except for Republicans... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #124
it took 10 years to get us out of the great depression. it's been 6 years since the great recession ND-Dem Jan 2015 #128
YOUR anecdotal evidence....is not proof of anything.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #129
*your* anecdotal evidence; the evidence of the upper middle political class; ND-Dem Jan 2015 #133
You don't dig out of a hole. The first rule of getting out of one is to stop digging. Digging makes TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #142
One can only hope. nt Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #19
Ha! If Only. LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #40
That would be good. Change is incremental. n/t Adrahil Jan 2015 #77
Not always. On civil rights, for example, Ken Burch Jan 2015 #123
But's not like that legislation came out of the blue.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #143
Obviously it's a generational struggle. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #144
She's the ultimate Centrist Not as Bad candidate. A power hungry mediocrity. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #14
NO she is NOT...How many times do I have to prove this to YOU? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #17
Privatize social security? Free trade? ETC? Are you fucking kidding me? You're PROVING she's RW RiverLover Jan 2015 #27
What? Those aren't Leftie policies anymore? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #28
Sorry, it does say that. Watching the SOTU... But I really am skeptical~ RiverLover Jan 2015 #32
Well I am giving you the public record of what she HAS done... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #34
That is a good thing. Her husband's NAFTA and his gutting of wall street regulation arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #51
Meh, one never knows. People are not inanimate, unchanged objects. Circumstances are unpredictable. UTUSN Jan 2015 #20
1+n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #23
What method are you using to foretell the future? Agnosticsherbet Jan 2015 #21
Exactly. Such confidence is almost absurd. cheapdate Jan 2015 #35
Over simplification, and reduction to black and white thinking Agnosticsherbet Jan 2015 #54
RE: Your line on RFK. wyldwolf Jan 2015 #31
Bobby Kennedy wanted jobs programs for people on welfare-as did and DO those on welfare themselves Ken Burch Jan 2015 #63
And Bill Clinton baked a workforce development component into the '96 bill... wyldwolf Jan 2015 #73
Bull. Shit. Rosco T. Jan 2015 #33
I find it ironic that on the same day we have a thread lambasting Obama BainsBane Jan 2015 #36
+100! zappaman Jan 2015 #45
+ infinity. nt ecstatic Jan 2015 #50
Can you please link to the thread "lambasting Obama for not delivering on a single payer promise"? Scuba Jan 2015 #52
That would be your OP BainsBane Jan 2015 #57
I never mentioned Obama, except to point out that Dems controlled the White House ... Scuba Jan 2015 #58
I am afraid I have to correct you there BainsBane Jan 2015 #61
I wonder how often this "your own position has slipped a bit to where you are a bit closer to... bettyellen Jan 2015 #53
Oh, you mean us "Third Way" folk? BainsBane Jan 2015 #59
+ Infinity (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #56
I have always known that capital called the tune in this country. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #64
Let's examine this BainsBane Jan 2015 #66
Well said. The role of the President in the American system is conservative (small "c") by design YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #83
+1 lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #108
Well-said, BB. The operative word is "fantasies." nt Hekate Jan 2015 #125
Sir, I know JEBtm JCMach1 Jan 2015 #42
Who is YOUR suggestion? Focus on that person instead of tearing down the current crop! ecstatic Jan 2015 #47
didn't see vote against both Alito and Roberts? Kind of amazing you did not address women's issues- bettyellen Jan 2015 #49
HRC isn't the only person who can fight the assault on choice. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #65
it is a huge issue that currently is killing many women, literally jailing them for pregnancy these bettyellen Jan 2015 #82
I didn't mention it in the OP(I guess I should have) because ANY Democrat will fight for choice. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #95
The reason she is the frontrunner is because the polls say she is the frontrunner. StevieM Jan 2015 #60
Then find somebody you find more appealling to vote for mythology Jan 2015 #62
let's be clear, you despise Hillary Skittles Jan 2015 #70
not despise just dislike dembotoz Jan 2015 #81
and we all know how much glamour counts in elections Skittles Jan 2015 #94
It's not personal. It's about what her record shows. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #98
uh huh Skittles Jan 2015 #99
Sure it's not Hekate Jan 2015 #127
I'd say the same thing about anyone else with the same record. And you know it. n/t. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #135
Let's be honest....nothing progressive can happen under a Republican president. BootinUp Jan 2015 #75
And I wasn't calling for one to be elected(I said I'd vote for her if nominated) Ken Burch Jan 2015 #100
If I didn't have a raging headache BootinUp Jan 2015 #104
Everything is relative BootinUp Jan 2015 #139
No. of course not. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #140
Another Hilary bashing post oberliner Jan 2015 #78
Or, as some people would describe it: Tuesday brooklynite Jan 2015 #79
What will this be like come primary time? oberliner Jan 2015 #80
K&R There is nothing more important than stopping Hillary woo me with science Jan 2015 #84
JSYK F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #89
On my computer, you have to load it twice. woo me with science Jan 2015 #93
Yes, yes it is. F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #116
But dahhhhling, I was just chatting with Hill at the salon LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #85
Lol. nt benz380 Jan 2015 #96
"nothing progressive can happen under HRC as president." NCTraveler Jan 2015 #86
Like you, if she's nominated I'll vote for her - but the GOP is likely to win. closeupready Jan 2015 #87
PUMA! redux jpak Jan 2015 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #91
or...cartoons OF cat pictures brooklynite Jan 2015 #92
Do you consider cosponsoring increase in minimum wage which was the last increase to $7.25 being Thinkingabout Jan 2015 #102
I think that's more "let's exaggerate wildly and unfairly" than "let's be honest". N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #103
Feel free to point out any areas where I exaggerated. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #122
Sure it could. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #107
+1 No more Third Way corporatists and warmongers. woo me with science Jan 2015 #109
Let's be honest: tell me again why both Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren said they'd support Hillary. Hekate Jan 2015 #119
Why does that matter? in January of 1967, Bobby Kennedy was saying he supported LBJ for re-election Ken Burch Jan 2015 #121
You're making me LOL with your "Why does that matter?" My-my-my. >smh< nt Hekate Jan 2015 #126
That is completely false. Liz signed a letter but refuses to publicly, verbally endorse HRC. RiverLover Jan 2015 #130
What sort of letter did Liz sign,& if it's supportive,how's that different from a verbal endorsment? Hekate Jan 2015 #132
This interview explains the letter & how she studiously avoids endorsing Hillary~ RiverLover Jan 2015 #134
the pessimism expressed here is palpable Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2015 #131
I agree totally that we need to fight for a more progressive Congress. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #136
Koch et al miss those days~ RiverLover Jan 2015 #137
Hillary would appoint whoever her Wall St masters told her to. Progressives be damned. nt benz380 Jan 2015 #141
Agreed. eom saltpoint Jan 2015 #138
kick nt benz380 Jan 2015 #145
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's be honest....nothin...»Reply #147