MSNBC: Barack Obama Vs. Hillary Clinton (Cenk)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Run time: 05:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_J68IpVfmo   Posted on YouTube: August 05, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 2917   Posted on DU: August 06, 2010 By DU Member: spiritual_gunfighter Views on DU: 1417

 
Cenk asks the question, "would Hillary Clinton have been a better President than Barack Obama?"

[blm]

1. It's HRC and Clintonites in the WH who are wielding TOO much influence, pulling rightward

especially on war decisions, where HRC was persistently siding with Gates, McChrystal's more hawkish positions.

Sad to me that (and I never saw him as a progressive but further left than Clintons) Obama believed he NEEDED the 'experience' of the Clintonites when what they were 'experienced' at doing was moving the Democrats in Washington further right towards the GOP positions.

[Bobbieo]

2. You mean Rahm is with the Clintons.

[saracat]

3. Oh Pffsst! Obama controls and picked his own staff. If he allows himself to be dominated by them, he

is too impressionable. These were his choices, just as Rahm was. he actually fought to get rahm, and despite those who hoped differently, Rahm ain't going nowhere. Rahm and CO speak for the president, not the other way around.

[dflprincess]

7. +1

[bvar22]

8. I disagree.

Obama does not allow himself to be dominated by them.
He IS one of them.
Thats WHY he picked them.

”I am a New Democrat!”---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184


The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. No. Rahm and Geithner reflect Obama's values.

He's not being dominated by them, they are a reflection of his postracial, postpartisan, postpopulist worldview.

Du'ers projected their expectations on him, not based on his record, not based on his speeches, not based on his appointments, but based on superficial attributes.

On his color.

Of course the first black president would have to be a progressive. Strangely, he's still considered a progressive despite demonstrating again and again that he wants no part of it.

The primaries were so contentious because, ironically, everyone who wasn't an Obama supporter was portrayed as "low information voters". Paradoxically, they are the ones that saw this coming.

Nevertheless we are where we are. We need to push for progressive policy, regardless of how hopeless it might be.

[jgraz]

4. Oh shit -- THIS is what the "A$$HAT" kerfuffle was all about?

Seriously???

Holy shit, Cenk made a fairly mild case, supported it with evidence and -- here's the part people are missing -- had TWO pro-Obama African-American guests on to disagree with him.

Those guests just didn't walk in from the street. Cenk and the MSNBC producers *chose* them with full knowledge of what their positions were.

In other words, "Cenk the Asshat" purposely selected two people to gang up on his point and argue the other side. How any Obama supporter can possibly complain about this segment is beyond me.

[JJW]

5. Twins

Is there a difference between Hillary and Obama?  It was a
coin toss in the election.  We simply misjudged how much of a
corporate shill Obama turned out to be.  We should be
comparing Obama to a real progressive like Kucinich, Feingold,
and/or Kennedy. 

[John Agar]

6. Very thought-provoking.

I supported the president in the primaries, but had no problem with Hillary either.

[Spheric]

9. K&R At least SOMEBODY is speaking for progressives. /nt

[bvar22]

10. Well, he is wrong here.

There was a clear policy difference between Hillary and Obama.

Hillary was FOR Individual Mandates,
and Obama was strongly AGAINST them.
.
.
.
.
Oops!
Fooled again.
My Bad.

[sallyseven]

11. I know a lot of people like Cenk but

I find him obnoxious. Who does he think he is. I hope he gets off MSNBC pretty soon.

[JTFrog]

12. You and me both. n/t

[CherylK]

13. I love him!

I hope he gets his own show soon!!!

:patriot:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. I LOVE CENK!

and I hope he gets a MSNBC show very soon, the ratings for his show this week were really good, MSNBC needs Cenk.

[Raineyb]

15. How obnoxious a progressive who will actually stand up and put up a fight rather

than lie down and let the person they're arguing with stomp all over them.

:sarcasm:

No wonder progressives get labeled as wimpy when so many are so mealy-mouthed that someone who actually speaks their mind is labeled as obnoxious.

[Overseas]

16. I do agree with the guests that too many Democratic legislators had been compromised

by the campaign contributions (aka bribes) from multinational corporations to push for the strongest modern FDR agenda.

We jump on our president but we needed hundreds of Alan Graysons pushing for dramatic Democratic change. We needed our party to strategize before his inauguration about pushing through Medicare for All on basic compassionate grounds in view of the great suffering inflicted on our people through the Republican administration pushing our economy off a cliff.

But our Democrats had been compromised by campaign contributions for decades already. And many have used Republican opposition as an excuse not to promote the best interests of the majority of our citizens, like national health security.

When we didn't get Medicare for All during Bill Clinton's presidency, I wondered how so many Democrats could have avoided doing something that would have given our party millions more loyal fans for decades to come. Once you've experienced national health security, as I did living overseas for a while, you know how deeply moving that can be. Why on earth would they not have done something that could have ensured them victories for years? Something more powerful than electoral success was at work back then and still rules the roost today.

And the Republicans look like strong tough guys because they band together as a block to support the multinational corporations that rule our government. They have the easy job of standing up for Big Money and Plutocracy.

It may have been impossible for Democrats to assemble as a unit, to be willing to sacrifice millions in campaign contributions from privatized medical insurance, Big Pharma, and other strong corporations to push through Medicare for All. I wish they had had that discussion and readied themselves for that fight before President Obama took office.

We would have been so glad to have the terror of medical costs removed from us that we would have voted for Democrats for years to come. Grateful citizens could provide a counterweight to the truckloads of corporate campaign cash and corporate funded smear campaigns.

But I guess that just was not enough to make the whole group of Democratic legislators push our president and country into using our taxes to give us basic national health security. Even after the Republicans had crashed our economy with their reconciliation tax cuts and trillion-dollar wars.

[knixphan]

18. DEFINITELY need hundreds of Alan Graysons

...and A couple dozen Bernie Sanders in the other chamber.