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
Populist Reform of the Democratic Party
In reply to the discussion: No apologies from me, I can't imagine a more vomit inducing nominee for the Democratic Party [View all]Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)54. HILLARY'S VISION
Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 04:18 AM - Edit history (1)
As a presidential candidate, says one political veteran, Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a fresh start. For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure, he continues. The more she tries to moderate her image the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.Who said this? Marco Rubio? Scott Walker? A consultant for their fledgling 2016 campaigns? In fact, none of the above. They are the words of David Axelrod, the uber-strategist for Barack Obamas 2008 campaign, and are drawn from his new memoir, Believer. The hefty, engaging book has been dissected mostly for Axelrods analysis of his former client and his presidency, but its actually far more remarkable from another vantage: It is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clintonand how much theyve allowed themselves to forget along the way.
This amnesia may seem harmless now, but it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election.
The reconciliation of Obamas following with the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee has been the great underexamined story on the Democratic side of the ledger heading into an election year. One simply cannot overstate how much ill will there was between the two camps in 2007 and 2008that historic, down-to-the-wire primary standoff was based not in policy contrasts (good luck recalling the differences in their health plans) but in a deeply personal clash about the meaning and methods of progressive politics. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because were worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just wont do, Obama said in his breakout speech in Des Moines in November 2007. This party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purposea higher purpose.
Clinton fired back sarcastically three months later: Now, I could stand up here and say, Lets just get everybody together. Lets get unified. The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. The legions of young Obama foot soldiers in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere were fired not just by airy notions of hope and change and making history but by the more negative motivation that the prospect of a Clinton nomination stirred in them.
snip
And yet here we are, eight years later, and it is almost as if that great showdown never happened. Some of those young Obama loyalists have now assumed leading positions in the vast Clinton apparatus, as have some of his most senior campaign staff. With no serious opposition looming in next years primaries, Clintons standing among Democratic voters is vastly stronger than it was at this point eight years ago (right around the time Obama announced his challenge), notes Nate Cohn in the New York Times. As was the case then, the papers are full of eyebrow-raising stories about overlap between her political backers and donors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet whereas in 2007 those stories were seized on by many liberals as confirmation of their wariness of Clinton, this time around there is little sign of the storiesor those about her continuing to rake in $300,000 speaking feescausing any real agita on the left.
more..........
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/obama_s_supporters_may_have_forgotten_how_much_they_despised_hillary_clinton.2.html
Clinton speech to FMI-United Fresh meeting lacks vision
June 16, 2014
Clinton started off by saying she was "thrilled to talk to two groups that every day help families get access to healthy foods" and that she wanted to talk about "hard choices" in food and leadership in the country.
Clinton praised United Fresh for its program to provide salad bars in schools and noted that "there is a debate in Congress" about whether to stick with the healthier meals rules imposed on schools under the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. She did not specifically endorse sticking with the new rules, but said "the idea it is too expensive to provide healthy foods" is a "false choice."
She also noted that the Clinton Foundation cofounded the Alliance for a Healthier Generation with the American Heart Association. The alliance, she said, has convinced food and beverage companies to reduce calories in their products. The foundation, she said, has a partnership with McDonald's, "and we need more of those."
http://www.hagstromreport.com/2014news_files/2014_0616_clinton-speech-fmi-united-fresh-lack-vision.html
Hillary Clinton, tell us your vision
By Eugene Robinson
Her memoir of the years she spent as secretary of state, Hard Choices, offers little guidance. My view is that Clinton did an excellent job as Americas chief diplomat, but if she has an overarching philosophy of foreign relations, she left it out of the book. We know that President Obama believes in multilateralism and the sparing use of U.S. military force. We know that some critics believe we should be more interventionist and others believe we should be more isolationist. Hard Choices doesnt really tell us which way Clinton leans, though her record suggests a slight nod toward the hawkish side.
In the book, Clinton rejects the idea of choosing between the hard power of military might and the soft power of diplomacy, sanctions and foreign aid. Instead, she advocates smart power, which seems to mean all of the above. When I hear officials talking about smart this or smart that, I hear a buzzword that is often meant to obscure policy choices rather than illuminate them.
Clintons message on domestic affairs is also unclear. At the Iowa event, she sounded what is sure to be a major theme for both Democrats and Republicans in the coming campaign: the need to ease the plight of the beleaguered middle class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-hillary-clinton-needs-to-tell-americans-her-vision/2014/09/15/b1f39ee4-3d09-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
HILLARY'S VISION
A couple of months ago, Robert Kagan wrote a manifesto that attacked Obamas foreign policy as weak and cowardly. He hailed the triumphal return of neo-conservatism and interventionism, arguing that superior force must be central to US policy.
A follow-up interview with Kagan appeared in the New York Times:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his mainstream view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy, Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obamas more realist approach could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table if elected president. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, he added, its something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.
Now, in an interview with the Atlantic, Hillary shows boldly that Kagans confidence in her is not misplaced. It is a full-throated call for reliance on US power to subdue or tame all adversaries, and her list includes not only the jihadists of ISIS, but Iran, Russia, and China. She joins the chorus blaming Obama for a too cautious approach to military intervention. On Israel, she gives not an inch to worldwide condemnation of the occupation and the massacre in Gaza: Israel did what it had to do.
Whats most striking is the lack of vision beyond American superiority and the need to try to convince or compel the rest of the world to fall in line. Nowhere in the long interview does she mention climate change, poverty and inequality, or any of the existential problems that require international cooperation if there is to be any hope.
http://leonsoped.blogspot.dk/2014/08/hillarys-vision.html
Hillary's Evasive Views on the NSA
On Tuesday, the technology journalist Kara Swisher raised the subject of surveillance while questioning the former Secretary of State. "Would you throttle back the NSA in the ways that President Obama has promised but that haven't come to pass?" she asked. Clinton's successfully evasive answer unfolded as follows:
Clinton: Well, I think the NSA needs to be more transparent about what it is doing, sharing with the American people, which it wasn't. And I think a lot of the reaction about the NSA, people felt betrayed. They felt, wait, you didn't tell us you were doing this. And all of a sudden now, we're reading about it on the front page...
So when you say, "Would you throttle it back?" Well, the NSA has to act lawfully. And we as a country have to decide what the rules are. And then we have to make it absolutely clear that we're going to hold them accountable. What we had because of post-9/11 legislation was a lot more flexibility than I think people really understood, and was not explained to them. I voted against the FISA Amendments in 2008 because I didn't think they went far enough to kind of hold us accountable in the Congress for what was going on.
Swisher: By flexibility you mean too much spying power, really.
Clinton: Well yeah but how much is too much? And how much is not enough? That's the hard part. I think if Americans felt like, number one, you're not going after my personal information, the content of my personal information. But I do want you to get the bad guys, because I don't want them to use social media, to use communications devices invented right here to plot against us. So let's draw the line. And I think it's hard if everybody's in their corner. So I resist saying it has to be this or that. I want us to come to a better balance.
This will not do. The answer elides the fact that Clinton has not been a passive actor in surveillance policy. "What the rules are" is something that she was responsible for helping to decide. She served in the United States Senate from 2001 to 2009. She cast votes that enabled the very NSA spying that many now regard as a betrayal. And she knew all about what the NSA wasn't telling the public. To say now that the NSA should've been more transparent raises this question: Why wasn't Clinton among the Democrats working for more transparency?
Clinton may resist "saying" that surveillance policy "has to be this or that," but it must be something specific. "Let's draw the line" and "I want us to come to a better balance" are shameless weasel phrases when you're vying to call the shots. What is being balanced in her view? What should the NSA have revealed earlier? How much transparency should it provide going forward? What does the law require of the NSA? Since 9/11, when has the NSA transgressed against the law as Clinton sees it? Those questions hint at the many ways that her position is evasive. So long as no one else contests her party's nomination, she can get away with it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-evasive-position-on-nsa-spying/386024/
Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone -
At a speech to an environmental advocacy group, Clinton came out in favor of frackingand ignored the controversial pipeline project.
At a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in midtown Manhattan Monday night, before hundreds of deep-pocketed donors, Hillary Clinton praised the environmental legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, touted the prospect of new green technologies, and had warm words for Barack Obamas aggressive efforts to combat climate change.
Absent from the former Secretary of States speech? Any sense of where she stood on the controversial Keystone pipeline project, or what she would do differently as president to steer the nation towards a more sustainable future.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html
Not in her office equal pay for men and women
During her time in the U.S. Senate, Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a report by Washington Free Beacon.
Analyzing data obtained from official Senate expenditure reports, Free Beacon concluded that the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men, between 2002 to 2008.
Thats about a 28 percent gender wage gap:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/257200-hillary-clinton-paid-female-staff-28-percent-less-men/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=ijreview&utm_campaign=Politics
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
321 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No apologies from me, I can't imagine a more vomit inducing nominee for the Democratic Party [View all]
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
OP
Great post! Because I really expected President Obama to resolve all those issues!
PBass
Feb 2015
#142
For his first two years, Democrats had large majorities in both houses, greater than any Democrat is
merrily
Feb 2015
#238
"Y'all"? just because I don't jump on the bash - Obama (and Clinton) bandwagon....
George II
Feb 2015
#286
there is a threshold where the consequences are so significant, the moral equity of one side
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#5
Loyalty oaths are for J.Edgar Hoovr and Joe McCarthy. They are not for this Group.
merrily
Feb 2015
#264
From what I see, I find it far fetched, at best, that Webb will challenge Hillary from the left.
merrily
Feb 2015
#269
Demand Publicly Funded Elections, end campaign contributions, a Super PACs, and the
Dustlawyer
Feb 2015
#258
Always more views than replies and more replies than recs. But the thread has a lot of recs, too.
merrily
Feb 2015
#244
Every DNC dime is being spent on her at the exclusion of building a responsive leadership
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#6
As you obviously support Hillary perhaps you could give those of us that would rather
A Simple Game
Feb 2015
#130
He doesn't have to give you anything, and go ahead and puke your guts out
politicaljunkie41910
Feb 2015
#185
Indeed... thats why media groups and HRC fans keep spouting their inevitability garbage.
Veilex
Feb 2015
#184
Who cares about being "the base"? Nobody negotiates with or caters to automatic votes, there is no
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#309
Nope, I participate there as well. I'm gonna eat my cake and shit it out too.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#312
That's what I always call it, and I would never have named the New Democrat Coalition the way New
merrily
Feb 2015
#274
Why don't you post that in GD or the Hillary Group or any one of the other groups where your posts
merrily
Feb 2015
#255
Oh, yes Clinton was a complete failure who left the country with an excess that Bush gave his buds.
olegramps
Feb 2015
#108
Yes, he was just a terrible president in whose presidency Americans suffered not.
olegramps
Feb 2015
#285
NAFTA and repeal of Glass Steagall dwarfed the importance of that modest surplus, which, btw,
merrily
Feb 2015
#256
Clinton and Greenspan BOTH actively lobbied for repeal so "veto proof" is a shibboleth .
merrily
Mar 2015
#296
I never said that he didn't support it; but it had the support of many Democrats in the Senate.
olegramps
Mar 2015
#299
What a Democratic President and his advisors push on Congress does impact Democratic Senators.
merrily
Mar 2015
#300
No one told the banks they had to make bad loans. They told them they couldn't use race or
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#314
I didn't say he signed it because it was veto proof. It was veto proof was only a fact.
olegramps
Mar 2015
#316
You don't get it. The last time the DLC put up a candidate against a Bush was 2000
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#47
What I think is that their owners don't care if HRC loses to Jeb. They would be happy with either.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#204
Why take the chance again? Nominate an honest progressive and break the chain of
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#217
She is better than a Republican shtick doesn't work when her POLICIES are the SAME as the GOP
Vincardog
Feb 2015
#111
Perhaps you should post things like that in GD, or the Hillary Group or some other group?
merrily
Feb 2015
#248
Discussion if issues takes a back seat to mocking her personality and voice. Her cankles are next.
Hekate
Feb 2015
#279
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9378/10425744_2.jpg?v=8CDBD2ABE243CF0
blkmusclmachine
Feb 2015
#11
Agree. She will not win, instead her faux folksy banter will fall as flat as Romney's did
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#15
You have it backwards. She ran and lost against Obama. People didn't vote for her
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#48
"Clinton came very close to winning." And Al Gore came "very close to winning" in 2000. But they
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#171
It's not necessary to get rude. I understand that HRC lost the primary to
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#194
I am not sure of the significance. She didn't win the primary. She lost. Again, why choose her with
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#207
Hafta disagee w/ u there JD. Wit the right coachin from advisors, Hillary can remake herself, appear mor folksy & feel ur pain.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#41
I hope that all of your 47,000 posts are not as utterly foolish as the ones in this thread.
PBass
Feb 2015
#147
you should give a shit about who gets the nomination, blindly saying you don't care
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#23
The hand wavin is what gets me. Hillary definitely needs to work on her speakimg skills -terrible delivery - not to mention her position on impt issues.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#42
I notice she wasn't too worried about the women and girls of Iraq when she voted for the IWR.
Maedhros
Feb 2015
#172
Really! I think private mail is more discrete. When I accidentally posted in the BOG
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#77
True, but I still respect their requests to delete posts when I post in a group by mistake.
merrily
Feb 2015
#240
I remember Anderson well, I think you are confusing Nixon and Reagan and neither
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#295
Then stay home and don't vote. I don't think your one vote will matter anyway.
demosincebirth
Feb 2015
#53
The ONLY good thing about her being president would be how she would tear the GOP a new one.
cui bono
Feb 2015
#55
Kicked and recommended for hard truths that are very difficult for some of our members to accept.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#62
Yeah, I think we can win. But if Hillary is our candidate, we lose whether she wins or not.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#81
The fact that H. Clinton can raise a lot of money shouldn't be the defining issue.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#78
I agree with your sentiment, but I can think of even stronger political ipecac: Rahm Emanuel
corkhead
Feb 2015
#63
Yes, infection spread by the 1% of the population who believe they are immune by birth right
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#82
Smugness? Really? The Democrats that ran a DLC candidate were also smug in 2000.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#107
Hey I get it. It is what it is. H. Clinton has the big money behind her and it will be
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#116
Some say the Democratic Party has deserted the workers, they have it backwards.
olegramps
Feb 2015
#119
DLC types are DYING to claim "The adults are back in charge" and kick out Obama's whole team.
Spitfire of ATJ
Feb 2015
#131
"Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"
greenman3610
Feb 2015
#133
Um... "we are literally fucking ourselves" if we sulk and stay home because she's the nominee.
calimary
Feb 2015
#137
I think we're in serious trouble. So it comes down to Hillary vs Bush (III) ? Time to pack the bags.
YOHABLO
Feb 2015
#169
Posts like yours are more appropriate for GD, the Hillary Group or some group other than this one.
merrily
Feb 2015
#249
I look forward to seeing this OP quoted verbatim far and wide as how "Democrats" think...
Hekate
Feb 2015
#193
Trolling with "rage bait" like this is the fastest way to get voted onto the "Greatest" page
PBass
Feb 2015
#209
Needed to be said to offset the Pravda like worship of a corp McCandidate, appointed heir apparent
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#223
As usual, DU's right has little to no respect for the fact that is a group, not GD.
merrily
Feb 2015
#250
Tell us how you really feel, haha. While I wudn't use such strong language, like u, I'm definitely concerned bout Hillary as a candidate, but not just on the issues...
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#259
Plus, it still doesn't guarantee a damn thing except we get hosed either way.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#311
She is the choice of the 1%. They owe her. She didn't make it in 2008 and imo, she won't make it
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#315