Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Using Repub framing does not make Clinton a Republican

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 04:34 AM
Original message
Using Repub framing does not make Clinton a Republican
What it makes her (and all too many of her supporters) is a frightened, submissive nervous bedwetter of a Democrat. All too many Dems (even those with solid voting records and platforms that support our own frames) use Rethug memes and frames for exactly the same reason, and despite all the human suffering the Rethugs have caused over the last 30 years, too many Dems are still too frightened to break Rethug frames and start using their own. A big component of the problem is the DLC effort to squelch any and all populist frames, of course. However, in the process of taking on the DLC, we need to get over our own fear first.

I’ve been tearing my hair out getting nitpicky squabbling about minor differences in the platforms and voting records of Clinton and Obama in reply to my attempts to discuss framing. Once and for all, framing is NOT policy dammit! Clinton’s voting record for the most part establishes her as a Democrat, but that has not stopped her from using Rethug framing, and constant use of Rethug framing by Dems has caused us to lose national elections from 1980 on, and from 2000 on it’s caused them to be close enough to steal. Also, it really clouds the discussion to say that Clinton actually is a Republican, because that too distracts from the issue of framing.

People who think that Democrats who attack other Democrats with Rethug framing are doing them a favor by “vetting” them are full of shit. That’s not vetting; that’s just being one more Rethug 527 swiftboating operation only with funding from Democratic money. If you don’t know that, the sociopathic shitstains at the Weekly Standard sure do—they’re pissing their pants with delight over the fact that Clinton is so strongly validating them by constantly agreeing with them. And if you think that will make them grateful enough to her that they’ll stop supporting Roger Stone’s anti-Clinton Citizens United Not Timid 527, I have a really great deal from a Nigerian barrister that I’m sure you’ll want to take advantage of. (On the other hand, attacking any Dem from the left really is doing him or her a favor, but that’s a whole different topic.)

Framing that we damned well need to break—fast.

“Strong on defense” is the first.

The only reason that people will tolerate a military establishment with a minimum of 700 military bases all over the world that have diddlysquat to do with actually defending American citizens is that scaring the shit out of said citizens has been the policy of the haves and have mores since the end of WW II, so that they can use our military establishment to make the whole “free” world safe for 50 cents a day labor. You could justify using a significant of our total resources to counteract the (strictly regional, though large) Soviet empire, but in reality most of our military capability during the cold war era was in fact used to bully poor countries into serving transnational corporations.

Since 1989, when the Soviets realized that they could no longer afford to be an empire, the haves and have mores have tried to reinvent a military mission to justify the massive imperial investment. The Somalia intervention by Bush the 1st was an attempt at positioning our military mission as social workers with tanks and cluster bombs. Ended badly, and the public didn’t buy it. Then it was boogaboogabooga! Drug lords are stealing your children! That worked for awhile, but then it wore thin. Then we had boogaboogabooga! Terraists will kill you in your bed! Leaving aside the question of whether 9/11 was allowed to happen (at a bare minimum, the Bushies knew something was up and did not care to know anything about the details), the fear meme was ramped up to an extent that we haven’t ever seen in our society.

Given a world in which resource wars are becoming the norm and a population that is moving toward unsustainable numbers, Peak Oil and global warming, terrorism and random outbursts of violence are definitely problems. Those problems have no military solutions, though, and wasting our resources on world domination is preventing us from solving them. Given that such a large percentage of our population derives their paychecks from the military-prison-industrial complex (only a small percentage of whom actually have their own lives at risk) the frame is not easy to break.

But one thing we should fecking well demand of our candidates is that they quit using the fear frame. Clinton has been absolutely vile in this respect, from the 3am ad to the obliteration statement. Obama has not and will not break the imperialism frame (our real elite will not allow anyone who does that to be nominated), but he at least has submitted to the public the frame of “good judgment” as an alternative to “toughness”. That’s a start. If we are stuck temporarily with imperialism as our default foreign policy, smart imperialism at least gets fewer people killed than the stupid variety the neocons are implementing right now.

And may I remind you that the majority of Dems in 2004 did exactly the same thing? Remember the Gephardt Osama ad used against Dean? The “For a Stronger America” Kerry/Edwards tshirts and bumperstickers? "Reporting for duty"? Not in any way denigrating his many good qualities, but the very choice of Kerry as the candidate was based on Democratic fear and acceptance of the meme that fighting terror requires military experience because it is a job that requires military force. Why couldn’t we have done some frame-shifting by breaking the association of military power with strength? As in just using the terms TRUE strength, strong enough to do the right thing, strength where it counts, etc.

Closely related meme “we are at war”

Well, no “we” aren’t, at least not the country as a whole. Our soldiers and their families are at war, but nobody else is. The people who wanted the war with Iraq now treat its injured veterans like disposable human garbage. Going shopping is what the Bushies think that having the rest of the country be “at war” means. If our candidates won’t ask why, if we are supposed to be “at war,” there are no ration cards or 90% top tax rates like there were when we were really at war in the 40s, we damned well ought to.

Another related frame “commander in chief”

That is among a president’s duties, but that is not what we are electing. Again, Obama with his emphasis on “good judgment” as the prime qualifier for the presidency breaks the frame. Clinton just reinforces it, and therefore continues to trash the general election prospects of both candidates.

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2008/03/17/ask-rockridge-we-need-a-president-not-just-a-commander-in-chief

Though the words themselves are neutral, they have been used within a right-wing frame that is not obvious. The frame includes the following:

--The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.
--The military role of the president is therefore far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.
--Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee) is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.
--The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.
--The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.
--The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president’s orders.

That is what it means to make the “commander-in-chief” question the main issue in a campaign. The commander-in-chief frame shifts the role of the president away from governing our nation and into the more limited scope of managing military affairs. It takes us away from domestic questions, including other questions of protection and leadership.

That frame is not what America is about. It does not embody fundamental American values. Nor does it portray what the role of the government is in our democracy. The dual roles of government are protection and empowerment, as we have written elsewhere. Protection is not just military or police protection, but a wide range: consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, social security, protection from natural disasters and disease, and protection from economic devastation.

The kind of military chain of command and absolute authority in wartime does not apply to most functions of the president. The president is not supposed to be commander-in-chief of Congress, nor commander-in-chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander-in-chief of the American people. Right now he isn't even Commander-in-Chief of Blackwater, a private army.


See also http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/public-servant-v-military-commander.html


The very destructive “elitist” frame

This particular frame that Clinton is promoting makes Scaife, Murdoch, and Buchanan wet themselves with joy. Their frame is that the haves and have mores are not our elite—our real elite is educated technocrats. You know, those snotty bureaucrats that tell real he-men that it’s illegal to shit in the reservoir. Over-educated sorts who read and do math and who are trying to fool the salt of the earth with nonsense about global warming and Peak Oil. It’s pretty hard to add anything to what Thomas Frank said on the subject in What’s the Matter with Kansas.

I’ve gotten into it on this board with more than one person who thinks that because the two most corporate-friendly candidates are the finalists, and neither is offering a populist program that would make every working class person instantly forget about the Repuke cultural definition of “elitism,” it’s therefore OK to use that Repuke elitist meme on either of our candidates. Fine, if you think that McCain and his plan of stripping away employer-provided health care and replacing it with nothing is an acceptable alternative to either Democrat.

The Repukes have all the advantages here. The MSM constantly recycled the Kerry windsurfing photo, the Gore “earth tones” anecdote, the Dukakis tank picture, etc. Edwards was far more populist than either Clinton or Obama, and before he dropped out we were treated to sneers about the too-pretty Breck Boy expensive haircuts and the big house. His populism did not exempt him from that crap. If we could get in a time machine and bring back FDR, they’d use the “elitist” shit on him too, ferchrissakes! There is NO good reason for any Democrat to go along with it under any circumstances.

If Clinton thinks that they’d never pull the same nonsense on her in a general election, she’s totally delusional. We’d get the Tuzla video 24/7, and that idiotic Annie Oakley pose would be constantly ridiculed. We never get any constant repetition of the real backstory on the Repuke stage sets, the totally fake Bush “ranch” whose owner drives a truck to “clear brush” because he’s terrified of horses. Or constant shots of Fred Thompson’s fake red pickup truck.
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/06/phony-fred-thompsons-red-pick-up-truck.html

Even though the Dem base despises the real elitists of the DLC, any Dem, no matter how populist, gets stuck with the “elitist” label because you see the windsurfing shot 24/7 and never see the phony pickup truck at all. Clinton is despicable for deliberately contributing to this MSM-based problem.

Obama has so far done the right thing by refusing to use “elitist” memes against Clinton (despite the obvious fact that she has ten times his net worth), and by directing his counterattack solely at McSame. Good move to brush off as trivial and funny an accusation of “elitism” from an owner of eight mansions directed toward a guy who had just paid off his student loans a few years ago.

The related “activist” frame

So, what’s wrong with a term that quite a few progressives use to describe themselves? The problem is that the Repukes and Clinton link it with “elitist.” If you are an activist, the fact that you even have time and energy for doing anything besides vegetating in front of American Idol after a day’s work makes you an ”elitist.” Never mind that you have to fight for scraps of time with all the survival demands you are also dealing with. The problem with the term is that it makes what should be a concern with the basic duties of citizenship seem weird and abnormal.

http://prorev.com/shilling.htm

'Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. Daniel Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government, neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves doing, is governing."

Then there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant. Ironically, 'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.

Another phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop talking about a church altar guild.


Personally, I now try to avoid using “activist” where “citizen” or “active citizen” would work better. Ditto taxpayer and customer. Obama has not only broken this frame into small pieces but smashed it clear out of the park as well. Far from being a “messiah,” he says as often as possible that he isn’t going to change diddlysquat unless his supporters stay organized and involved after the election. He’s put his money where is mouth is and spent it on organizing and training. After 9/11, there was a great upwelling of an urge to do something for America from people of all political stripes, answered by the Repukes with a call to go shopping and to be afraid, very afraid. Finally we have a call to common citizenship from a presidential primary finalist.

In contrast, Clinton has expressed nothing but contempt for “activists,” and thereby for the very notion that average people should spend any time at all seeking to influence the direction of public affairs. Her “experience” and her policies and programs will save us, not our own actions. Presumably there are people who doorbell and phonebank for her, but clearly they are not “activists,” presumably in the same sense that users of alcohol and nicotine “don’t do drugs.” :sarcasm:

The “blame America first” meme

I don’t think that we can count on either candidate to attack this one yet, even though it would be great for the Dem populist base if they did. It fits in with the “elitist” framing, and it is really easy to reframe. The original frame is that the true “America” is the haves and have mores who dictate American foreign policy. The corollary is that the rest of us poor saps who just live here are not qualified to be “America.” All we have to do to change the frame is to say that the corporate elites who want to sell our port security to Dubai (home to the banks that finance quite a few terrorists) are the same people who decide we have to attack countries that never attacked us. Corporations demand that we physically threaten other countries who won’t go along with having “free” trade imposed on them, but they incorporate in Bermuda so as to avoid paying taxes for this service. When Repukes (or any Dems that buy into the Repuke framing) say that “we” have to defend “our” interests, the only appropriate response is “Whatchu mean WE, Kemosabe?” Of course Clinton can’t possibly do that since Bill is shilling for Dubai and the Columbia “free” trade agreement. Obama could do it but has not done it, and may well be too afraid to break this particular frame and go that openly against our real elite. That makes this one, again, up to the rest of us.


Standing up for Democrats

Obama seems to have a hands off approach here, inadequate, but better than people who really ought to know better and just pile on when Dems get publicly attacked. Not just Clinton is at fault here, but also Pelosi and Elizabeth Edwards.

It turned my stomach when Pete Stark apologized. Ditto Kerry. I really hope that EE took Jane Hamsher's advice to heart.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-23-voa76.cfm?CFID=231049011&CFTOKEN=41238241

In arguing in favor of their measure, Democrats asserted that President Bush and Republicans were unable to find the funds for medical insurance for children while spending tens of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

At one point in the debate, Congressman Stark came to the floor and made these remarks. "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it, to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq, to get their heads blown off, for the president's amusement."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/why-is-hillary-clinton-ta_b_33076.html

I can see we're going to have to set up some sort of "Democratic PR school" soon. They've become so accustomed to being George Bush's whipping posts they no longer recognize it when they have the advantage, and as the John Kerry incident demostrates they are in sore need of a few remedial lessons on how to press it when they do.

First of all — I don't care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points. Ever. It makes you look like a big wuss who can't stand up to the Republicans, even when they're playing from an exceptionally weak hand on an issue you own. For all those anxious to be seen as the tough defenders of national security, huddling in a crouch position while they pummel you about the head and bleating "yes, yes, we deserve this" does not have the best optics.

<snip>

Secondly — did I mention that the Democrats own the issue of Iraq? Even the WSJ acknowledges it is the #1 factor influencing people's votes this election. If the Republicans want to bring it up, that's a perfect opportunity to pivot and attack:

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton seems to be taking her political cues from Rush Limbaugh at a wholly inopportune time. You expect Rush, who evaded military service thanks to a large boil on his butt, to defend fellow draft dodger George Bush by castigating Viet Nam war hero Kerry. But why does Hillary Clinton have to jump into the Sista Souljah business?


http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/15/note-to-elizabeth-edwards-lay-off-moveon/

You're a smart woman. You of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about -- the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he's a rescue worker, but they'll try to demolish your husband over a haircut because they know that they'll get swarmed by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter. That's how it works.

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh's place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don't say squat about Fred Thompson's lymphoma. We're your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here's the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don't. Do. It.

The war is a desperate mess. When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, "glad you mentioned that...I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush's growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country." Or, "thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word "betrayal" to characterize General Petraeus's lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we're being given about the situation is realistic..."

There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn.


The pivot and attack technique demands reframing of Repuke talking points. Clinton needs to start doing it, and Obama needs to do it a lot more. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Isn't it a bit late for Hillary Clinton?
She's done exactly what you have outlined here that a Democrat shouldn't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. But every Dem that supported Kerry in th 2004 primary was acting on exactly the same fear
He is a more than decent Dem and human being, but if he had been better able to counter the fear framing, he might have gotten his margins a lot farther away from the close enough to steal level.

Grantcart has pointed out that Clinton is backing away from the negativity, so it isn't too late for her as a Democrat, just probably too late for the nomination.

I was trying to point out how even Dems like Elizabeth Edwards fall for the fear framing. It doesn't make them not Democrats--it means that we all need to work on countering that frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
34. It was the reason we were stuck with Kerry
The Democratic Party as a whole got stuck on the whole "electibility" meme and ran away from Dean and towards Kerry as the safe option because they were stuck on the whole Republican framing, which was used by the other Democratic candidates early on in the 2004 primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. And it is also the reason for the Dem lack of spine after 2006
The fear meme is screwing us, and we have to cut it the hell out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Frank Luntz GOP Playbook
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. This is a very useful link
That section on how Repukes are all about 'accountability' was hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. you lost me with your first sentence
it is juvenile and STINKS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Sorry, past editing time. The rest of it actually is a serious discussion of framing
Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruby slippers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. but, she already WAS a Republican back in her younger days....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. True, but actual Republicans won't even pay lip service to universal health care
Neither candidate supports it, but either would sign HR 676 in a New York minute if we can get ourselves organized to pass it working from the bottom up. No way in hell would we get that from an actual Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Framing LIMITS policy
If a Democrat won't step outside the parameters of Republican talking points, on matters that make Neocon radio swine squeal loudest such as demanding at least 44% of each tax dollar going to the Pentagon, then accepting that framing leads to worse than "policy" -- it leads to INSTITUTION and institutionalized thinking. And then, any Democratic candidate who dares suggest that the entire institutionalized value structure and system is wrong is labelled a "joke candidate" like Kucinich.

Of course framing IS policy in many areas. And it leads to much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. That is true, but you can at least start to crack some of the framing
Obama has done that partially on militarism, and really well on elitism. I think we are stuck with that for this year unless we educate more of our neighbors about imperialism, which is hard because so many paychecks depend on it.

I think that there are at least two frames for every policy, maybe more. You can frame uniersal health care as "nanny statism," or you can frame it as "investing in a public good." Makes a big difference which is which, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. So in your opinion whats the damage assessment Hillary Clinton has done with these GOP talking pts
for a democrat to use these tactics reinforces everything the right conditions people with on a daily basis. It wouldn't be so bad if we had 50/50 split on the radio,but with a 90/10 ratio the damage spreads like wildfire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. It has been really substantial
But as grantcart has pointed out, she has really backed off on that stuff over the last few days. Which means, if she keeps up the good behavior, it won't matter how long she stays in. Given the general public's short attention spans, we ought to be able to recuperate.

Especially if some of our 527s keep banging on McCain for wanting to strip away the employer based insurance that many of us still have and replace it with nothing. And call out his flipflop on torture. And ask why he called his wife the C word in public, and why she is rarely seen with him. And why he ditched one wife just because she had a car accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
11. You may couch her policy statements all you like, but if she's acting in a way that benefits the GOP
Then she IS in the GOP camp. I don't support Hillary for the same reason I didn't support Bill -- both are far too conservative for my tastes. If she is the nominee, I'll vote for her (just as I did Kerry), but I do think she's more in line with the fear-and-greed neocon GOP than any part of the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I still say that the frightened Democrat camp is really a different place
After all, it includes quite a few of us who supported Kerry for fear of not being "military" enough otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I consider her a corporatist along with the DLC
in other words they keep the Democratic party in line so to speak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Obama is only marginally less corporatist
However, he is a least breaking some of the corporatist FRAMING. That and his superior campaign organization make a real difference. We will be a long way from digging ourselves out of corporatism even with an Obama presidency, but it would at least be a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
15. I rec'd your post. Very intelligent analysis. More people need to "get" this because framing is...
a huge issue for Dems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. Logan's Law: hatred of Hillary varies inversely to knowledge of Hillary's record.
Edited on Tue May-06-08 06:12 AM by Perry Logan
Here's Hillary's record--constituting all the experience Obama doesn't have. Please circle all the Republican, corporate-whore, warmonger stuff:

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly and the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom she had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years. Bill appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

And a bit of stuff from the White House :

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.<124> She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.<125> She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.<43> The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.<43> Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.<43> In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.<43> As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),<126> Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),<127> and Children and Adolescents (2000),<128> and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)<129> and Philanthropy (1999).<130>

Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

More:
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/israel/index.cfm
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/darfur

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
easures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

HILLARY'S EXPERIENCE ON THE WORLD STAGE:

Her historic speech at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 not only galvanized women around the world, it helped spawn a movement that led to advances politically, legally, economically, and socially for women in many countries over the next decade. Among other initiatives, she spearheaded the Clinton Administration's efforts to combat the global crisis of human trafficking. She persuaded the First Ladies of the Americas to use their collective power to eradicate measles and improve girls' education throughout the western Hemisphere. And she is widely credited with helping women in Kuwait finally win the right to vote.

As First Lady and now as a two-term senator who represents the most ethnically diverse state in the nation and who sits on the Armed Services Committee, Hillary Clinton has become a fixture on international issues over the past 15 years. She has traveled to more than 80 countries, going from barrios to rural villages to meetings with heads of state. She has consulted with dozens of world leaders - Nelson Mandela, King Abdullah, Tony Blair among them -- on matters as diverse as America and NATO's roles in Kosovo, eradicating poverty in the Third World, and the plight of women living under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Today, she is one of the most influential voices in the world on human rights, democracy, and the promotion of a "new internationalism" in foreign affairs that calls for a balanced use of military force, diplomacy, and social development to strengthen American interests and security globally.

While American First Ladies historically have made great (and often overlooked) contributions to our nation, Hillary Clinton's wide-ranging experience on international issues as First Lady is unprecedented. Indeed, she is the only First Lady to have delivered foreign policy addresses at major gatherings of the United Nations, the World Bank, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Economic Forum.

Hillary Clinton has been fighting for the rights of children for special needs for decades. In her first job out of law school working for the Children's Defense Fund, she conducted research that led to Congress passing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the landmark bill mandating that all children with disabilities be educated in the public school system. later, she helped improve the education of children with special needs by working to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. In 2005, she sponsored an amendment to increase funding for the act by $4 billion dollars. She also cosponsored the Personal Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act, a bill that promised to help schools recruit and retain new special education teachers, and better prepare general education teachers and staff to work with children with special needs.

Most recently, she has called for greatly expanded funding to the National Institute for Health to investigate treatments for children with disabilities. And she has put forth a comprehensive and detailed plan to help children and families affected by autism, with numerous elements that correspond very closely to what families in the autism community have been demanding for years.

some points on her legal career:

1969 Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland, one of the most liberal law firms in the country. They defended the Panthers.
1970 Yale University - city legal services, provided free legal advice for the poor.
1971 Staff attorney, Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts
1971 Carnegie Council on Children, legal consultant.
1974 Impeachment Inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.
1974 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law - One of only two female faculty members.
1976 Worked pro bono on child advocacy.
1978 Jimmy Carter appoints Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.


Education

Wellesley College where she majored in political science.
Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

Political Activist Experience

Pragmatic Liberal

Always fascinated by radicalism, she wrote her senior thesis on a great radical organizer of poor people, Saul Alinsky of Chicago. Though when she was offered a job by Alinsky, after she wrote about him, and she turned him down--because she didn't think he was effective enough. She said to her boyfriend at that timebe in politics you have to win. And it didn't look to her like Alinsky was winning enough of his battles. She came to question his methodology and concluded in her thesis that larger government programs and funding were needed, not just community action at the grass roots.

She was the commencement speaker at Wellesley in 1969, chosen by her fellow students--there had never been a student commencement speaker there before. The scheduled speaker was Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who Hillary had campaigned for, a Republican, the first black to be a member of the U.S. Senate in a hundred years. In his remarks he was patronizing, Hillary thought. He seemed to defend the Nixon administration's conduct of the war, and didn't mention the wrenching events of 68. When he finished, Hillary got up and extemporaneously excoriated him. As a result of that speech, she was featured in Life magazine as exemplary of this new generation of student leaders. They ran a picture of her in pedal pushers and her Coke-bottle glasses. That article made her well known in the student movement in the U.S.

She monitored the Black Panther trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial to see if there were any abuses of the rights of the Panthers on trial, and helped schedule the monitors. Her reports were turned over to the ACLU.

1971 Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.

Political Campaign Experience

1964 In high school, volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater.
1968 New Hampshire, Eugene McCarthy primary challenge to LBJ.
1972 Campaigned in the western states for 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern
1976 Jimmy Carter Presidential race, served as an Indiana campaign coordinator.

The Clinton Campaigns (Bill Clinton has stated Hillary played pivotal roles in his campaigns)

1974 Bill Clinton's Congressional race (L)
1976 Bill Clinton's Attorney General race (W)
1978 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (W)
1980 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (L)
1982 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (W)
1992 Bill Clinton's Presidential Race (W)
1996 Bill Clinton's Presidential Race (W)
2000 Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign (W)
2006 Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign (W)

Legal Experience

1969 Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland, one of the most liberal law firms in the country. They defended the Panthers.
1970 Yale University - city legal services, provided free legal advice for the poor.
1971 Staff attorney, Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts
1971 Carnegie Council on Children, legal consultant.
1974 Impeachment Inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.
1974 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law - One of only two female faculty members.
1976 Rose Law Firm. In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner.
1976 Worked pro bono on child advocacy.
1978 Jimmy Carter appoints Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.

First Lady of Arkansas

1979 Chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee
1979 Introduced the Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.
1982 - 1992 Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee

She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977.

Served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988-1992)and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986-1992)

Corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985-1992),Wal-Mart Stores (1986-1992), and Lafarge (1990-1992)

First Lady of the United States of America

"She's very smart ... people rightly give her credit for having been a participant in the Clinton administration and for doing some heavy lifting on issues." Barack Obama, speaking of Hillary Clinton's White House experience and contradicting Obama supporters - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 8/22/07



When asked about his wife's role in his administration in August of 2000, President Bill Clinton said "She basically had an unprecedented level of activity in her present position over the last eight years.''

1993 First to bring a serious universal healthcare plan to be considered by the US Congress
1997 Helped develop the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

The First Lady led the effor on the Foster Care Independence bill, to help older, unadopted children transition to adulthood. She also hosted numerous White House conferences that related to children's health, including early childhood development (1997) and school violence (1999). She lent her support to programs ranging from "Prescription for Reading," in which pediatricians provided free books for new mothers to read to their infants as their brains were rapidly developing, to nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She also supported an annual drive to encourage older women to seek a mammography to prevent breast cancer, coverage of the cost being provided by Medicare.

Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president's senior staff. While her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. They were known to disagree. Regarding his 1993 passage of welfare reform, the First Lady had reservations about federally supported childcare and Medicaid. When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President's potential response. Weighing in on his Cabinet appointments and knowing many of the individuals he named, she had working relationships with many of them.

She persuaded Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to convene a meeting of corporate CEOs for their advice on how companies could be persuaded to adopt better child care measures for working families.

With Attorney General Janet Reno, the First Lady helped to create the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women office. One of her closest Cabinet allies was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Following her international trips, Hillary Clinton wrote a report of her observations for Albright. A primary effort they shared was globally advocating gender equity in economics, employment, health care and education.

During her trips to Africa (1997), Asia (1995), South America (1995, 1997) and the Central European former Soviet satellite nations (1997, 1998), Hillary Clinton emphasized "a civil society," of human rights as a road to democracy and capitalism.

The First Lady was also one of the few international figures at the time who spoke out against the treatment of Afghani women by Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.

One of the programs she helped create was Vital Voices, a U.S.-sponsored initiative to promote the participation of international women in their nation's political process. One result of the group's meetings, in Northern Ireland, was drawing together women leaders of various political factions that supported the Good Friday peace agreement that brought peace to that nation long at civil war.

Hillary Clinton was also an active supporter of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), often awarding its micro-loans to small enterprises begun by women in developing nations that aided the economic growth in their impoverished communities. Certainly one of her more important speeches as First Lady addressing the need for equal rights for women was international in scope and created controversy in the nation where it was made: the September 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China.

Senator From New York

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero.

She is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

She has introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.

She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program.

She has championed legislation to bring broadband Internet access to rural America.

She worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families.

She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism.

She sponsored legislation to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

She's working for expanded use of information technology in the health care system to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors.

She's worked to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and her legislation to help schools address environmental hazards. She has also proposed expanding access to child care.

She has passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.

Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.

She introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to ensure better protection of votes and to ensure that every vote is counted.

Senate Armed Services Committee

Subcommittees:

* Airland
* Emerging Threats and Capabilities
* Readiness and Management Support

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Subcommittees:

* Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chair)
* Subcommittee Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
* Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

Subcommittees:

* Children and Families
* Employment & Workplace Safety
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Excuuuse me! Policies and voting records are not FRAMES!!!
What is it that you don't understand about that statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. I'm going to email this 100 times over
great job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Since she's running on the Clinton name explain
Nafta,1996 Telecommunications Act,that new drug legislation that increased the number of AA youth going to prison,Welfare reform


Also explain IWR vote,Kyle/Lieberman vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. I don't like fhose policies any more than you do. However--
--policies are not FRAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. thank you excuse the slip up great post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
33. They don't want facts, Perry.
They've done their own framing. They're exactly what they're accusing others of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
21. Quackity quack quack
Quack fucking quack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Meow meow meow meow
Meow fucking meow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Ok then it's a kitten, she's still a rethuglican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, she's a Dem who has bought into the fear meme
I still say that is significantly different from being an actual Rethug. I can imagine her signing HR 676 (even though she won't fight for it, and that is really up to us anyway), and no way in fucking hell will McSame ever do such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
28. This syndrome drives me crazy because it's not Rocket Science but we don't get it
Actually, IMO, the problem goes back to the 70's and 80's, and extends beyond the party system.

I grew up in the 50's and 60's. It's amazing to me that simple concepts that most people accepted as common sense and common decency have been thrown overboard.

It's not only the right-wing GOP social memes, but also the corporate pr spin to justify things that would have seemed outrageously immoral and nonsensical in the past.

It is frustrating that the Democrats didn't aggressively challenge such absurdities like CEO's deserve to make millions of dollars while their line workers see their wages and benefits slashed. Or the ideas that creating huge monopolies is somehow going to "preserve competition."

If liberal democrats started talking from their heads and their guts more often, we wouldn;t need to be figuring out how to dig ourselves out of the hole we have been in for far too long.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
29. "Framing"? What an interesting term.
Edited on Tue May-06-08 07:33 AM by Triana
Using Republican-style SMEARS, DISTORTIONS, RACE- and CLASS-BAITING, and SWIFTBOATING tactics directly from the Republican playbook against a fellow Democrat and even jumping into political BED with them against a fellow Democrat MAKES CLINTON A REPUBLICAN.

Clinton's penchant to DESTROY this party and the winning candidate (whether herself or Obama) is REPUBLICAN.

Framing my ass. It's PURELY REPUBLICAN behavior and tactics and WORSE it's REPUBLICAN behavior and tactics USED AGAINST THE SAME TEAM - which can ONLY fracture the team/party.

It's Hillary's REPUBLICAN-style penchant for DIVIDE and CONQUER WITHIN and AGAINST her own party (or the one she CLAIMS to belong to) that makes her REPUBLICAN.

It goes WAY beyond "framing".

DO NOT attempt to MINIMIZE what this woman has done or DISCOUNT what she IS.

And she'll RUN THE WHITE HOUSE the SAME way. The SAME way it has been run for the past EIGHT years (at least).

And HOW has that worked out? Pffft.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for a REPUBLICAN and the SAME type of Republican-style politics we've had for the last 8 years. Hillary was a Republican in the past and she STILL is.

I want CHANGE. NOT a REPUBLICAN.

FRAME that!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Triana go back and read the whole piece I think you'll get quite a bit of info from it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Framing is important. I am trying to distinguish between damaging frames--
--and her overall voting record, which is mostly that of a Democrat. It's an important distinction. Would you rather frame universal health care as "nanny statism," or would you prefer "an essential investment in the public good?" Rattling on about the details of your policy and not putting the right frame on it does you no good.

The namecalling from the Clinton camp is nowhere near as bad as an unacknowledged frames that essentially always say Dems are always wrong and Repubs always right.

It does no good when someone attacks you on not "loving America" if you respond by sputtering, "I damned well sure DO love America!" You have to break the frame. What is at issue is not who loves America, but who has the right to define America. You must seize that right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
36. It is a moral decision.
Hillary failed so she is not qualified to be president. May not make her a true republican but then again Bush is not a true republican either. In my opinion she shares way too much moral judgment issues with them.

Lets call her a Neodem

right wing dem with right wing campaign style.

Besides we are saving the life of many Iranian children by not voting for her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC