HRC could heal her relationship with many progressives, and make winning in the fall in 2016 a LOCK

[Ken Burch]

If she just gave up her support of two positions that are not only bad policy and negative in consequences for MOST voters(even most conservative and "moderate" voters)but are deeply unpopular as well.

1)Her deep commitment to "free trade" deals...those deals hurt most Dem voters and are hated by most people in this country however they vote. NAFTA was never popular under Bill, and the deals proposed with Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia will only continue the "race to the bottom" tradition of free trade...more competition between states in this country and countries around the world as to who can cut wages, job security, social benefits and environmental protection down to the most inadequate and dangerous levels.

2)Her deep commitment to the status quo on foreign policy(the postwar "Scoop Jackson" tradition of perpetual military intervention, perpetual stratospheric war budgets, and perpetual confrontation rather than actual negotiation with other countries. Most people, even most conservative people, are sick of the whole war thing. She can use her reputation for "toughness" commit this country to focusing on what defense policy SHOULD be about...defending OUR territory from external attack(as the other party failed to do on 9/11, assuming it even wanted to protect us from that attack).

HRC would have little to lose from changing those positions, and virtually all objections to her nomination would vanish. There would BE no downside at all.

[DURHAM D]

1. Has she said anything in the past year about either of those issues?

[DonCoquixote]

7. NO

She just let Bill threaten Obama as being a wuss if we did not go to war with Syria. She is also the one that sayd "assad must go" her words, not mine.

[uponit7771]

2. ...no, no.. it wouldn't. People don't trust her, she wasn't perfect and in some cases inadequate but

... hopefully she can make a dent into their distrust enough for them to vote for her... she has done such with me... I think she has a new level of give a damn.

REAL "progressives" recognize change for the better and respond to it

[mike_c]

3. "I was dead wrong to vote for war against Irag" without equivocation....

2) I will work to raise taxes on the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels and regulate the financial industry to within an inch of its existence.

3) I will immediately halt government surveillance without probable cause and work to enact legislation that criminalizes such programs in the future.

4) I will create a national research and development effort with the goal of making fossil fuels obsolete within ten years.

5) I will work to reduce military and "defense" spending by 75%.

6) I will work to expand Medicare or a similar single payer universal health care plan that eliminates the profit motive from health care.

That'd be a good start, along with the excellent points you raised....

[SheilaT]

4. And what would make us think we could trust her to have changed, really changed

and not just said what she thinks she wants to hear.


Here's the problem for me. She is far too connected to an earlier administration. I don't see her actually standing up for the little people, unlike say Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson. She had her chance in 2008. It is long since time for the Democratic Party to move on.

What I find scariest about all these "Hillary is the One!" threads is that they seem to be based on a fictionalized version of her, and that all those who are so caught up in the idea that she will inevitably be our nominee just don't understand history. History like in 1991 it was so obvious to all that George HW Bush would be re-elected in a landslide the next year that not a single Democrat who'd otherwise planned to run was now willing to do so. Which left the field open for a little-known governor from a southern state . . . . well you know the rest.

In 2001 it was obvious to a lot of people here that of course Al Gore would run again and he'd definitely win in 2004.

In 2005 lots of people here assumed that of course John Kerry would run in 2008 and win. Oops. He decided not to run, and so it was simply ineveitable that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination.

Not to mention, isn't there an election next year we should be focussing on?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I'd be willing to think about reconsidering her in, say, 2020....maybe.

Then again.....maybe...nah...forget it.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Why would anyone buy any such statements?

She hasn't budged to this point. She is unrepentant as can be on all counts and she is no kid still working out her belief system

Hell, she is a member of "The Family" so I can't even wrap my head around why her supporters trust her at all.

We don't need a lullaby to soothe, we need a new leaf to turn and while people change, it usually isn't the wealthy senior citizens changing stripes and such folks usually change for themselves because they have lived and learned, it is suspect when someone suddenly changes when they want votes.