Hillary Clinton is a "populist leaning liberal" on the issues,

[pnwmom]

according to the analysis of her record by Ontheissues.org

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[eridani]

1. Not if she favors TPP and Keystone XL

Not to mention all those cozy tete-a-tetes at Goldman-Sachs

[pnwmom]

4. What positions did she take on TPP or Keystone XL as a Senator?

Or has she taken since then?

I haven't seen anything but rumors.

[eridani]

7. This was as SecState

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1
...
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/Hillary-Clinton-On-The-Keystone-Xl-Pipeline.htm

This is what Clinton said about the Keystone XL pipeline in response to a question at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco event:

"So as I say, we've not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons — going back to one of your original questions — we're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. And until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet, I mean, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone how deeply disappointed the President and I are about our inability to get the kind of legislation through the Senate that the United States was seeking."

[OKNancy]

14. at the time she spoke on tpp

it was not written. I read the initial speech and there was nothing in it that would warrant all the negative reactions.
What she said was reasonable.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. "It was not written"

She helped write the fucking thing!



Last summer, Clinton’s undersecretary for economic growth, Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs (GS) vice chair, took executives from Google (GOOG), MasterCard (MA), and Dow Chemical (DOW) to Myanmar to network with government officials, the first such meeting since sanctions against the country were lifted in 2012.

...
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1



She spent her time in the State Department shilling for DOW and Mastercard. What a great liberal icon!!!!

[pnwmom]

41. There is no finished draft yet, is there?

Do you have some inside info?

[eridani]

43. Yes, as a matter of fact. See Wikileaks n/t

[pnwmom]

44. That was not a final draft and it wasn't a complete draft, either.

It was a document, still in negotiation, that someone leaked.

[eridani]

45. Yes, and those negotiaters were clearly discussing how to fuck up the 99%

Had they been proud of what they were doing, it wouldn't hae been done in secret.

[joshcryer]

52. TPP is more about environmental and intellectual property standards.

Since the US doesn't manufacture that much anymore and is on a sustainable energy roadmap, those two things are the main selling point. We want to own the IP for sustainable energy but we want the rest of the world to make it. Clever, that.

[joshcryer]

51. Wikileaks showed most TPP participants disagreed with its provisions.

We don't know what the final draft will look like.

[eridani]

53. OK--just ignore it. The 1% is only looking out for all of us--

--and whatever they come up with in secret is bound to be wonderful.

[joshcryer]

54. No, give the other participants more credit.

That's all. They don't want to be fucked over either. If anything the final draft will fuck the US over more than anything.

[Ken Burch]

147. The US as a country, perhaps. US corporations, absolutely not.

They will call the tune on the TPP, no matter what, as they always call the tune on all "free trade" deals.

[Whisp]

63. Bill Clinton 'embraces' Keystone

Bill says there is a lot of money to be made (and imaginarily rubs his hands together because the money will be going to the top cream like himself and Hillary and not many others)

and Hillary has been pushing for quite some time with all the Clinton connections:

[DonCoquixote]

106. hey whisp

Thank you for posting the stuff certain people keep insisting does not exist.

[treestar]

138. That doesn't say anything about her stance on any issues

The TPP is only one issue and why do we have to assume it's not something a liberal would support?

[eridani]

152. No one who supports corporate global dictatorship is a liberal, period n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

2. HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

[closeupready]

103. +10000000000000000000.

[PeteSelman]

3. Sure, if you're a far right bagger type.

In the real world she's Reagan with good social issues.

[Victor_c3]

6. A great way to describe her. I'm going to have to repeat that. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

16. That's inane

Such knowing talk here about how right-wing Hillary is. Anyone who runs against her from the left will find it's not that easy.

Here's an exchange from 2008, e.g., does this sound like Reagan?:

Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates

Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.
CLINTON: Absolutely
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
CLINTON: It’s just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm

Show me where any Republican has ever talked like that on the Bush tax cuts. It's an Internet thread, I have a lifetime. You'll need it.

[PeteSelman]

20. Talk is cheap.

Obama said the same thing and what happened? He made 95% of the Bush cuts permanent. What makes you think she would have been any different?

Her policies of Wall Street and TPP belie your assertion, she's very Reaganesque.

[BeyondGeography]

23. What happened is we had a near Depression in the meantime...hello?

By the time it was both economically wise and politically safe to raise taxes (I know you hate that term, but Obama did have 2012 to think about), we had a Republican House to deal with.

But it wouldn't surprise me if those points mean next-to-nothing to you.

Anyway, forget Reagan. If you really think Hillary is a Republican, then she must be on board with the Ryan budget, right? Anyone who runs against her from the left will find she's just as appalled by it as he or she is. So let's stop with this Hillary is a socially liberal Republican nonsense. Sixty years ago, you may have had a point. Not anymore.

[PeteSelman]

28. Well that IS the entire point.

The "center" has moved so far to the right in Washington that what was once a Reagan Republican is now a mainstream Democrat. Of course she's not on board with the Paul Ryan budget but so what? Is that the standard now? That not being a far right, John Birch maniac means you're a good Democrat? Fuck that.

Even Obama described himself as an 80's moderate Republican.

Pretending that Hillary is a friend to the working class is hilarious and ridiculous. She's a Reaganite that will sell us further out with the TPP and I wouldn't rule out another war, she's a lot more hawkish than Obama. Neo-lib isn't really any better than neo-con.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Maybe you should define "Reaganesque"

She does not demonize government.

She has never embraced supply-side economics.

She does not undermine long-established entitlement programs with cherry-picked (and fabricated) examples of abuse.

She does not favor cutting social programs and starting a new arms race.

So how is she Reaganesque?

[greatlaurel]

107. Well said, BG

This statement "In the real world she's Reagan with good social issues." has no connection with reality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Why isn't the same spluttering outrage directed at anyone who suggests Obama leans liberal?

Has Obama done enough? I'd say no. But Hillary hasn't yet been put in the position to make the question anything other than hypothetical.

How much will Goldman Sachs pay Obama for speeches?

[PeteSelman]

31. There's plenty of that.

There's been a ton of criticism against Obama for being way too centrist/right leaning economically. He's a self described "80's moderate Republican".

So…yeah.

[treestar]

139. We do have other branches and a separation of powers

Obama had to deal with a Republican congress. That doesn't make him a Republican. Same for Hillary.

[Victor_c3]

5. Yup, that is exactly why Goldman Sachs paid her $400,000 to give two speeches back in November

The big banks wanted to hear her populist message, I'm sure that's exactly what it was.

[IMG][/IMG]

[AgingAmerican]

40. And when Obama is out of office

He will give speeches too to the same crowd. If they want to hand out money, so be it.

[Victor_c3]

57. Which is also what I'd expect from the guy who didn't push to hold any of the banks or wall street

types responsible for their role in ruining the lives of millions of Americans.

He talks the good talk when it comes to being a progressive, but his actions are often very contrary. Sorry for being so cynical, but I view most of his presidency as being the 3rd and 4th term of bush policies. Hillary Clinton would show us what a 5th and possible 6th term of bush policies would do to our country if she is elected.

[AgingAmerican]

70. It's what they do

...when they get out of office. Cept Carter...

[Auntie Bush]

82. Sounds like you have psychic abilities!

You ought to use that ability and get on a psychic program on TV...there's a lot of them on now to chose from. Good luck!

[Whisp]

71. We will have to see if your crystal ball is correct.

I don't see the Obama's as money grubbing gluttonous ghouls that would sell anything for a buck, tho.

Do all past Presidents and President's wives go on that big money circuit like the Clintons do?

The Bushes, well there's old dad, he's not too spry lately so I doubt he does that.

Then there is his Dim Son, who is in hiding most of the time painting himself into corners. He might get a bit of extra change here and there for speaking fees.

Did Ron Reagan do that to the extent the Clintons do? Make very expensive speeches to the top crust in return for favours to that very same top crust? Probably, but not near what the Clintons rake in. Rake. Rake. Rake.

How about Jimmy Carter? Is he popular enough for the Sachs/Carlyle crowd for them to pay Him $200,000 for a pretty speech? I doubt that - if Carter did do a speech it sure wouldn't be what they want to hear.

So if you think the Obama's are as greedy and shameless, go ahead and thunk. Time will tell and I can wait.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Obama's administration

...is infested with former Goldman Sachs executives.

[Whisp]

73. and Clinton people and Repuglicans that wedge themselves

into posts for eternity.

The President has a lot of backstabbing selfish assholes all around him. As to his infestation of Sachs executives, I would have to see the numbers of those compared to the entire force of federal employees to make a judgement on what exactly 'infestation' means to you.

[AgingAmerican]

127. I mean he has appointed them to high positions

within his administration. That is what I mean by 'infested'.

[DonCoquixote]

105. most of whom

worked with the Clintons long beforehand.

Trying to paint Obama as right of Clinton will not work...

[AgingAmerican]

128. So everything Obama does

...is the Clintons fault?

Obama is far to the right of the Clinton's, especially on economic issues.

[Whisp]

131. what are some of Clinton's fine work for the left?

welfare reform?

what else have you in mind?

[AgingAmerican]

132. Folks on welfare were five times more likely to work

... by the end of his term than before Clinton took office.

Longest economic expansion in American history. Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment. Enacted sweeping gun safety legislation. Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans. Lowest poverty rate in 20 years. Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union. Protected millions of acres of American land. Paid off $360 billion of the national debt. Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus. Most diverse cabinet in history up until that time. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and environmental protection (where he had success).

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

[Whisp]

133. o yes, Bill's reform worked wonders, didn't it?

seriously?

What Bill did was make the road for the rich to become Super Rich.
He and Hillary care about poverty? HA! Then explain why the Clinton Intiative supports Slave Wages in Haiti for their friends fancy factories.

try harder.

[AgingAmerican]

134. I notice that you ignored

...almost everything in the post.

[Whisp]

135. Talented man, doing all that and running around the Oval Office

with his pants down around his ankles.

The economic boom of the 90s was due to the Intel guys mostly, Silicon Valley. You can give Clinton credit for inventing that himself, but I have my doubts.

[AgingAmerican]

137. Now you sound like

...Ken Starr.

And you are parroting the main RW/Limbaugh talking point for the 'Clinton Miracle'. Congratulations, you are in stellar company...

[Whisp]

140. It appears that clinton is in that stellar company of pugs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/welfare-limits-left-poor-adrift-as-recession-hit.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

Critics of the stringent system say stories like these vindicate warnings they made in 1996 when President Bill Clinton fulfilled his pledge to “end welfare as we know it”: the revamped law encourages states to withhold aid, especially when the economy turns bad.

The old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, dates from the New Deal; it gave states unlimited matching funds and offered poor families extensive rights, with few requirements and no time limits. The new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, created time limits and work rules, capped federal spending and allowed states to turn poor families away.

“My take on it was the states would push people off and not let them back on, and that’s just what they did,” said Peter B. Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University who resigned from the Clinton administration to protest the law. “It’s been even worse than I thought it would be.”

But supporters of the current system often say lower caseloads are evidence of decreased dependency. Many leading Republicans are pushing for similar changes to much larger programs, like Medicaid and food stamps.

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the top House Republican on budget issues, calls the current welfare program “an unprecedented success.” Mitt Romney, who leads the race for the Republican presidential nomination, has said he would place similar restrictions on “all these federal programs.” One of his rivals, Rick Santorum, calls the welfare law a source of spiritual rejuvenation.

==
when the likes of Ryan, Mitt and the Foamy One agree, it's gotta be great! right? right? RIGHT?

[AgingAmerican]

141. Bloobity, blabbity, blobbitty, bleh....

Clinton blabbity, blubbity bleh? Egga noggity Hillary bleeb? Welfare blibitty bloobitty blah?

Please tell us how Obama has strengthened Welfare and the safety net?

You are still ignoring everything I said in the aforementioned post. Say hi to Ken for me!

[Whisp]

142. I knew you would be backing off with a blush on your face.

You call ME a friend of Ken Starr (or whatever implication yu intended that smeared me) but you ignore my last post - that the scumfucks like Ryan, Mitt and The Foam seem to like Clinton's idea of 'reform'.


okay, my work is done here.

[Whisp]

143. Just one more parting gift for you:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ryahnke/filmteach/My-Archive-of-Film-Notes/bowling-columbine-VIEW.htm

Michael Moore.

CHAPTER 27:WELFARE TO WORK

40. Cut to the little boy’s mother entering the courtroom. Moore’s voice-over: In order to get food stamps and health care for her children (close-up, slow motion, of the mother), she was forced to work as part of the state of Michigan’s welfare to work program. This program was so successful at tossing poor people off welfare that its founder, Gerald Miller, was hired by the number one firm in the country that states turn to privatize their welfare systems. That firm was Lockheed Martin. (Now Moore’s story seems to have come full circle—from Lockheed in Columbine to Lockheed affecting Flint.) Lockheed had found the perfect way to diversify, the perfect way to profit from people’s fear—from an enemy much closer to home—poor black mothers—like Tamarla Owens (close-up of the mother in the courtroom. She is crying.)

41. Cut to a well-dressed man sitting behind his desk. He complains about a program that sends single-mothers 60 miles one way to work. “How does that help a community?” He scoffs at this kind of system. And he is the sheriff of Flint, Michigan! “I wish I could put two parents in every home, and make them equally responsible—but you can’t do that!” Cut to a bus that is driving through streets early in the morning. Moore’s voice-over: This is the bus she was forced to ride every morning in order to work off the welfare money the state had given her. She and many others from Flint who were poor would make the 80-mile round trip journey every day from Flint to Auburn Hills. (Cut to the beautiful suburban hones with big lawns.) She would leave early in the morning and return late at night—rarely seeing her young children. Back to the sheriff: “What’s the point in doing that? Where does the state benefit? Where does Flint benefit from that? I think that may be part of the problem! We drove the one parent out!” Back to the bus we go—and Moore interviews two of the riders. One man has been riding the bus for three years. “Half my neighborhood works out here in the mall.” He gets $3 more per hour. That’s why he spends the time in traveling to and fro on the bus. Did he know the mother? “She was a nice lady. She came to work every day. She worked two jobs. She was trying to make ends meet.”

42. Dick Clark’s American Bandstand Grill in a big mall in Oakland Hills. That’s where the mother worked (and a second job in the fudge shop). Moore’s voice-over explains who Dick Clark is—and then Moore sneaks in a low blow by slipping in a photograph of Clark with Bob Hope and Charlton Heston. One of the employees of the Grill refers to Clark’s trademark line: “Music is the soundtrack of your life.” Moore notes in voice-over that Clark applied for special tax breaks by hiring welfare-to-work clientele. {{{lousy stinkin' fucker-my comment}}}} Moore’s voice-over: Even though the mother worked up to 70 hours a week at these two jobs, she did not earn enough to pay her rent, and one week before the shooting was told by her landlord that he was evicting her. She asked her brother if he could take her in for a few weeks. It was there her son found a small .32 caliber gun and took it to school. His mother did not see him take the gun because she was on a bus to go serve drinks and make fudge for rich people.

43. Shot of the palm trees and wide avenues of Los Angeles. Moore’s voice-over: I decided to fly out to California to ask Dick Clark what he thought about a system that forces single mothers to work two low-wage jobs to survive. Cut to an awkward shot, the camera behind Moore, as he leans on the van where Dick Clark is safely huddled inside. Moore tries to explain the context of his documentary, and he mentions the six-year-old that shot a six-year-old. “Get in the car, Dave!” Clark yells at his associate, standing off camera to the left. “We’re really late.” Moore keeps talking. “But the mother of the kid works at Dick Clark’s Grill—” and Clark cuts him off. “Forget it. Close the door!” “These people are forced to work—Dick—I want you to help me convince the Governor of Michigan— ” But Clark yells, “Come on! We’re going!” and the woman next to him in the backseat slides the van door closed. Moore continues, “—that the welfare-to-work—these women are forced to work.” The van drives off. “They’ve got kids at home. Dick! Ah, Jeez!” as he turns around.

==
You are welcome.

[DonCoquixote]

145. no it is his

because he forgot that many of us voted for him because we are angry at Clitnon. We wanted qa clean slate, call it a purge.

And kindly sate where Obama is t6o the right of Hillary. Not on H1b visas, Not on the embargoes against Cuba or Iran. Seriously, go ahead and list where Obama is to the right of Clinton, and of course, be prepared to watch as facts are presented to drown that sandcastle under the waves.

No leftist, or even center leftist, will seriously entertain the idea that Clinton is to the left of Obama.

[AgingAmerican]

148. He is to the right of her

...on economics. He is also to the right of her on most foreign policy issues.

[Whisp]

150. woah. Hillary voted for the Iraq war and threatened to 'obliterate' Iran

and so that makes Obama to the Right of that.... what with all the rightist diplomacy going on in the admin.

[DonCoquixote]

151. not a lot of hard facts or examples

Just feelings..

I mean, I get yelled at for "blue links" which at least mean I offer something.

You just offer this feeling that he is to the "right" of her, without being able to explain.

Do not be angered if I am the only one that sees a lack of anything to offer.

[Auntie Bush]

83. Raygun was paid ONE MILLION dollars for a speech in China.

Nobody wants to hear from those other guys. Is it the Clinton's fault everyone want to hear what they have to say? No way! Those people ask them to come and speak...they don't ask those people if they want them to speak. Clinton could probably even charge a lot more.

[antiquie]

126. Presidents in Retirement: A Comparison

Jimmy Carter – Retired back to Georgia, volunteered his time building homes for those in need with Habitat for Humanity. Continues his work to promote peace in the Middle East. Was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Still active to this day, 33 years after leaving the White House.

Ronald Reagan – Retired to his ranch in Santa Barbara. Soon after retiring he gave a speech in Japan for which he charged $2,000,000. Was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and disappeared from public.

George H. W. Bush – Was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. Jumps out of airplanes. Has recently become a maven of très chic men’s hosiery.

Bill Clinton – Launched the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative. Active with the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group. Traveled to North Korea to bring home two American women held captive by Kim Jong Il. Still works to promote Democratic Interests around the world.

http://thebigslice2013.org/presidents-retirement-comparison/

[joshcryer]

50. Does her Sachs speeches trump the rest?

Two Sachs speeches, dozens of pro-women organizations?

[Victor_c3]

56. not always, but it shows that she is for sale

During her speeches she made it very clear that she wouldn't be the type to prosecute banks and wall street sorts for running our economy into the ground with their reckless behavior and in the process of doing so ruining millions of lives. Those speeches are just two small examples of her taking advantage of a situation, temporarily setting aside her morals, and doing something to benefit her own cause - kind of like her Iraq War Resolution vote.

As a disabled veteran produced by that war, I have huge issues with Hillary Clinton, her IWR vote, and especially her reluctance to apologize for it. This is yet another example of her putting her morals (if she has any) aside to do something she thought would benefit her politically. Then in 2008 when probed on the issue of whether or not she was sorry for her vote she replied "I have nothing to be sorry for". I take that to mean that she either isn't sorry for making a politically expedient vote and the results it ultimately had on Iraq and our military or, if she was sorry, she was more worried about he own politically goals being impacted. In short, she either doesn't have any morals or is quick to discard them when it is convenient for her to do so.

I don't trust Hillary Clinton at all to do the right thing.

If she makes it past the primaries I'd most likely vote for her over almost any republican, but I'm going to have to hold my nose to do it. I'd be voting for her because she is the lesser of two evils, not because I think she'd be a great president.

[WhiteTara]

59. I'm sorry you're disabled; but you weren't drafted

some you bear some culpability for your service.

That said; I trust Hillary far far more than I would trust any of her opponents. Also, I believe she will really bend the social rules to the left. Knowing where she comes from, I think she remembers a lot of rural poverty and ignorance and will be a great president.

[Victor_c3]

64. True

and I do realize that I was stupid to ever believe that we as a country learned our lessons after Vietnam and that our military would only be used to make the world a better place and/or to actually defend ourselves. I joined in 1997 and took an ROTC scholarship in 1998 that committed me to 4 years of military service from 2002-2006. In 1998 when I took the scholarship, I had no idea that a war like Iraq was on the horizon.

Politicians took advantage of the our military and the good-hearted intentions of people like me for their own political gain. Hillary Clinton along with most/all of the people who voted to support that war in Iraq are prime examples of that.

I was a total sucker and there is nothing I can do now to undo anything in the past. But I can sure as hell do my best to prevent it from happening again. Hillary Clinton and those sorts of people who make decisions based solely on the facts that acting one way or another will improve their prospects of holding a higher office in the future are the type of politician we need to keep out of office.

[WhiteTara]

68. Barbara Lee was the only one who voted no.

Everyone else said yes. While it was/is a disaster for everyone everywhere; she is still the best we've got. John Kerry voted yes, too. Barack Obama was not in congress, so he can say anything.

I think the republicans engineered the saying yes from almost every one in Washington to the media. Phil Donohue was the only voice that was saying no and he was silenced. The republicans took advantage of every person in our government and country. But I am working that we don't go back. Obama has given us a good model of no war and I think that Hillary is strong enough to keep on this path.

[Ken Burch]

125. Where she came from? She came from the white-bread 'burbs outside Chicago.

The kind of places where you raise your kids to be completely unaware of poverty, racism(or, for that matter, the existence of anyone who isn't white) or any form of social injustice...unless you consider waiting for your tee-off time at the club to be discrimination. Hillary pretty much had Mitt Romney's childhood.

To raise your kids in a wealthy suburb is to raise them not to care about anyone else.

[WhiteTara]

136. I know, she's such a ......

fill in that blank.

I can understand why we hate her. She's powerful, smart and accomplished and how could we EVER like that in a woman? She should have stayed in her "white-bread 'burbs outside Chicago"; that way she wouldn't have been such an audacious b***h who founded children's advocacy in AR; she wouldn't have done that sh**ty thing like become instrumental in creating SCHIP and insured all those kids. We definitely hate her. We just hate her because......fill in that blank (I think you could fill it in with sexism...it would have been all good if she was a man.)

[Ken Burch]

146. I wasn't going to call her the "b word"-I hate that term-and this has nothing to do with gender.

Class and upbringing always trump gender.

And yes, she lived in Arkansas for a few years with Bill, but mainly spent the time going to big-ticket fundraisers, working at her upper-class law firm, and staying in a bourgeois cocoon. She never had any Bobby Kennedy-in-Mississippi experiences...she COULDN'T have had and endorsed the DLC and the Third Way.

Look, everything I've ever said about HRC I'd have said in exactly the same way about a man who took the same positions. Her career has nothing to with the work of real fighting feminists like Shirley Chisholm or Bella Abzug. And if she briefly cared about the poor in the 1970's she proved they meant nothing to her anymore when she didn't try to get Bill NOT to sign the welfare "reform" bill(he had the race won even if he vetoed it...nobody who wanted poor women punished for having kids would ever vote for any Democrat anyway. The test of a person you're considering for the presidency is what that person does when doing what's right and standing for those with no voice are unpopular. She failed that test in the Nineties...and part of this party's soul was forever lost when she stood and cheered as Bill SIGNED a bill cutting social assistance down to nothing and making the conditions for getting it humiliating and punitive. Can you still tell me, after that, that she even remembered the voices of the poor? Can you ever be a part of something THAT ugly and ever do anything that could possibly atone for it? Do you think she even wants to atone.


And I don't hate HRC...I just can't see any reason to nominate the least-progressive person who's going to run in 2016. I also don't want Biden, who is the only other possible candidate that year who's as far to the right as HRC is.

Gender has nothing to do with my opinions here...and it can't be feminist to vote for a hawk, an austerity supporter and a free trade(anti-worker and especially anti-female worker, since working-class women are the big victims in globalization) who simply happens to be a woman. Your position here is comparable to saying that British leftists were sexist when they opposed Margaret Thatcher.

[Beearewhyain]

8. She is not my first choice but if

she gets the nomination she gets my vote as long as the state is not in play, then maybe a protest vote depending on what she runs on. That said, how do WE move her policy to the left if she is elected? No Really. President Obama has been a bit of a disappointment but all in all he has done great things. Could have done much better but still, great things. My issues are largely economic and aligned with Warren and Sanders so why should I vote for her in the primary?

[RoccoR5955]

9. Yeah, if you are a teabagger! n/t

[JDPriestly]

10. So what did she really do to put the policies she claims to favor in action?

And why does she support common core? charter schools?

Just to name a couple of questions I have about her record.

[joshcryer]

49. Christ, the hits for "Clinton Common Core" on Google are atrocious.

It almost makes me want to support Common Core with how many right wing divisive bullshit links are posted.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

11. If she's a populist leaning liberal, I have six legs and a third eye in my forehead.

[winter is coming]

12. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. n/t

[brooklynboy49]

13. Horse. Fucking. Shit. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. It's a little late for an April Fool's joke, but you did make me laugh. Thanks.

[pipoman]

17. No, she is an entrenched DNC Democrat

Trying to make herself what she believes will sell to the most voters.

I believe a true populist will emerge for the 2016 cycle, the population who truly want a populist should be prepared for a full out media blitz to paint the person as a wacko, and deny the media that power.

[KG]

18. heh.

[Aerows]

21. And I'm the Queen of England n/t

[QC]

22. I am Anastasia, last of the Romanovs. n/t

[Xithras]

24. She's a pro-Wall Street, pro-military hawk.

The fact that she happens to fall on the right side of a few issues does not make her a leftist.

She opposed gay marriage until one week before the USSC was to review DOMA, when it became pretty clear politically that it was going down. She called for "legalization" of "illegal aliens" when others were wanting to offer citizenship, and opposed efforts to offer them drivers licenses in her home state. She supports tax cuts. She has a buddy-buddy relationship with some of the biggest banks on the planet. She's pro-death penalty. She once called video games a "dangerous threat to morality" and introduced a bill to regulate their sale. She opposes marijuana legalization. She supported No Child Left Behind. She introduced a law that would have imprisoned flag burners for a year. She doesn't oppose military tribunals. She supported the Patriot Act. She supports maintaining the Cuban Embargo. She bluntly once stated that national security is more important than human rights. I could go on. And on. And on. But I'll digress here.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, but there is no way in hell she'll get my vote during the primaries. I truly believe that if she were a man, and if her last name weren't Clinton, that she would have little support on DU. The quality of a candidate should be determined by their policies and positions, and not their name or gender. Clinton's policies and positions are far too right-leaning for my taste.

[jwirr]

29. That pretty much sums up what makes me uneasy about her running for president. I will have to vote

for her if she wins the primary but I will not feel secure.

[joshcryer]

48. Links? She notably supports medical marijuana.

And as SoS her exit speech decried the war on drugs. She also invoked Frank Gehry, a legal marijuana supporter. This was before Obama "evolved" and said marijuana was no worse than alcohol. Show some recent links to substantiate your positions. Clinton has evolved substantially, mainly because the country has evolved.

Obama didn't support marriage equality or marijuana legalization until the polls did. Same with Clinton. Don't blame them, blame the American population and blame Citizens United and blame our poor state of politics where politicians only take positions that are uncontroversial.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. I've never heard her speak in favor of Medical Marijuana, as Sec of State she openly

opposed legalization and in 2008 she opposed decriminalization. She mentioned Ghery's work, not his stance on cannabis and she did not say 'drugs' 'marijuana' or 'medical marijuana' at all in that speech.
Where is this notable support and when did it happen? I remember her being dismissive of patients in wheelchairs who asked her for support and got blather about 'more research being needed'.
Where are your links?

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. Is this kind of sarcasm really necessary!!?

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Rated 100% NARAL, 96% NAACP, 89% HRC, 82% NEA, 60% ACLU, 35% Chamber of Commerce.

100% from League of conservation voters.

I'd agree with populist leaning liberal.

Until I see who seeks the nomination, I don't know who I'll support, but I preferred her over Obama in 2008 and don't see her as a worst-case scenario in 2016.

[eridani]

35. Being on the right side of social issues isn't populist

Populism is about the economy, and there she is firmly in favor of "free" trade and in the back pocket of the banksters.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. Historically speaking...

The Populists were somewhat nativist and just a touch racist. So I would agree with you on that one.

I'm not knocking Hillary, mind you, but social and economic issues are not the same thing.

[eridani]

42. Populism can be racist, but its core is economic justice

To me, being a Republican that is good on social issues is nowhere near good enough.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. I really made a false comparison...

You can't compare the 1890's populists to populism today. Back then, they were for relief for farmers and small business, then at night they would go out and lynch some poor bastard for looking at a white woman.

Populists today (in my humble opinion) are progressive both economically and socially.

[joshcryer]

46. Equality of wages, social or populist?

[eridani]

74. Populist n/t

[joshcryer]

76. Green / sustainable energy? Social or populist?

[eridani]

113. Economic, therefore populist n/t

[joshcryer]

114. Being against CAFTA, social or populist?

[eridani]

117. Ultrapopuulist! n/t

[joshcryer]

115. For BCRA, social or populist?

[joshcryer]

116. BHVPA, social or populist?

[eridani]

119. Let's have some acronym help here n/t

[joshcryer]

120. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

It's social, I'm just teasing you, but if you think it's populist, then I am all about that. Of course I'd see it as populist.

[eridani]

121. Yes, of course it's social n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Point taken

But the fact that she only gets a 30% rating from the CoC suggests that the corporate world sees it differently from us.

Truthfully, I don't see anyone who might run who really deserves the label "populist" except perhaps Brian Schweitzer, and his NRA membership causes DU'ers to run screaming.

[eridani]

75. Geez--the CoC thinks OBAMA is a socialist, ferchrissakes. n/t

[joshcryer]

47. Clinton is so far to the left of Obama...

...Obama may as well have been Regan and Clinton, Carter. Really. I mean that.

[eridani]

77. Which is why she is more hawkish on Iran than he is, no doubt

She's only left of him on social issues. To me that isn't particularly useful, given that the culture war is over and our side won. Both are suckups to banksters.

[joshcryer]

118. Her foreign policy positions are terrifying.

[polichick]

32. Who chose that term, "populist leaning liberal?"

[hobbit709]

33. Got your hip waders on? It's getting deep.

[LeftyMom]

36. Isn't a year too early for painfully stupid primary threads?

I seem to recall something about a midterm.

[Vashta Nerada]

37. Yeah, when compared to teabaggers.

[LittleBlue]

39. Hillary Clinton... populist...

[djean111]

55. I see "populist" will be the new buzzword for a while, and soon it will be stretched so far to cover

Third Way - even though the third Way deplores the very thought - it will lose its meaning. Looks to me like there was a bit of an effort to make "populism" seem like a bad thing, didn't work, so now "populism" will be redefined as a Third Way thing that they wanted to be, all along.

Hillary is a Third Wayer.
Economically, she is no populist.
And anyway, we have 2014 to take care of, I thought - or is that only for those who prefer other possible candidates.
I think it may be a mistake to start ramming Hillary down throats so soon. She is what she is. I do not think opinions of her can be changed with words and exhortations at this point.

Saying Hillary is/was not deeply involved with the TPP and saying well, we don't know what's in it is hilariously disingenuous. Not going to work.

[marmar]

60. And I'm Winston Churchill ..................

[Hekate]

61. Thanks, pnwmom, but looky who shows up in the thread...

... to make sure there's some quotable quotes from a Democratic site.

[Romulox]

62. The most rightwing DUers all *attempt* to self-identify as "liberals".

As if free trade + drone killing + NSA spying + Gay Marriage = liberal.

It doesn't.

Same with Hillary.

[L0oniX]

65. Bwahahahahahah

[dembotoz]

69. yeah and obama is a socailist

happy friday humor to you too

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. Interesting that when I scroll down to 'Hillary Clinton on Corporations'

it doesn't even mention that she was on the Walmart board of directors. That seems like a pretty big thing to skip when considering how she is 'on Corporations'.

[BlindTiresias]

79. What a joke

Populist leaning liberal? What an insanely flawed metric they are using if she is classified as that. Would Warren and Sanders show up as Marxist-Leninist?

[Doctor_J]

81. trying out the Fox talking point

[Whisp]

84. Lol. What you said, so true! What the heck Would Warren and Sanders be if Hillary is pop lean lib?

[greatlaurel]

85. Warren and Sanders are evaluated at OnTheIssues website.

Bernie Sanders is evaluated as a hard core liberal. Here is the link:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm

Elizabeth Warren is evaluated as a hard core liberal. Here is the link:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

I would suggest you spend some time comparing Hillary Clinton's policies and statements to Sander's and Warren's. The OnThe Issues website has a lot of information so you can see actual votes and statements. You will find all three are far closer than Clinton's detractors claim. Clinton is a very solid liberal and will make a fine president who will have coattails. That is why the GOP trolls are already acting so terrified and are already in panicked overdrive pulling out every dirty trick in the book. The GOP have used the tactic of divide and conquer since Hubert Humphrey ran in 1968, but it is getting old and faded. The third way baloney is just another one of their pathetic attempts to divide the Democratic base in order to allow the GOP to steal another presidential election.

Happy Reading!

[BlindTiresias]

87. No

The political quiz and graph is terrible. I also love how you characterize people who hate the center right turn in the Democratic party which both Clintons are a part of as GOP trolling. As a student of political philosophy and political science their metrics are totally off kilter and very much buying into the pernicious right wing frame that has been plaguing American politics for decades now. Its a BS site and complete garbage, you would be better served by getting a real education in matters of ideology and policy and then evaluating the politicians on the basis of word -and- deed in addition to how vigorously they push some policies over others.

I give the site as a whole a C-, and only because it attempts to be unbiased within its flawed model.

[fascisthunter]

80. lol

wow

[reformist2]

86. I love how none of us are buying this, LOL!

[BlindTiresias]

88. Indeed

I imagine largely because it is a deeply flawed site.

[BlindTiresias]

89. Reminder

Reminder to everyone that this site uses the Nolan chart which is fundamentally flawed and originally constructed by Libertarians. There are -significantly- better models for mapping political positions out there.

[greatlaurel]

90. Please link to these sites that have better models, please.

Thanks in advance for the links.

[BlindTiresias]

91. Alright

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index This is still imperfect but is the minimum as far as complexity versus simplicity is concerned.

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-3-axis-political-test This is similar but has an additional axis (I am kind of iffy on this one tbh, but it is still better than Nolan charts)

http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php This is good for social attitudes as a nice aside

http://www.politicaltest.net/test This one is also decent (the best imo), far better than nolan chart derived tests and arguably the most fine grained

There was an additional one called Maxim's Political Test that was my old favorite but it has since disappeared

[pnwmom]

93. Do any of these site rate political candidates based on

the positions they've taken and they votes they've participated in?

[BlindTiresias]

94. Political compass does

The others comport very well to doing this on one's own. The problem with Ontheissues is that they are taking an extremely narrow ideological perspective and then using extremely narrow metrics to place people in narrow scale based on an extremely flawed ideological model (The Nolan Chart) that was developed by Libertarians. That they take into account the the multitude of positions and votes is actually pretty decent, but they are running it through a model that is deeply skewing the results and has very little depth.

Edit: To see what I mean take the positions of Hillary sampled in Ontheissues and then run it through Political Test or Political Compass if you want some more simple. You will get a very different result than Ontheissues.

[pnwmom]

95. How can someone do it on their own without knowing about all the votes

and positions a candidate has taken? I looked on the political compass website and didn't see where they did this.

[BlindTiresias]

96. Easy

Take the positions and votes sampled on Ontheissues and then run it through political compass or political test. Political compass already has quick and dirty examples of this, but if you are insisting on a fine grained approach you need to run fine grained data through an equally thorough model and not one derived from the Nolan Chart.

[pnwmom]

97. I think all the charts start out with a false dichotomy

between Libertarian and Authoritarian. Libertarian philosophy merely shifts the focus of power to the wealthy and corporations, and away from governments -- including democratically elected governments.

[BlindTiresias]

98. Not quite

There are left and right libertarians, just like there are left and right authoritarians. Generally the more axis you have the more precise and therefore accurate the ideological model will be. For example a left-right model is very poor and treats Hayek and Friedman as if they were Hitler or Pinochet on the right side and Stalin will end up with a center-left president like FDR. This is clearly inaccurate. Having two dimensions works better but is still imprecise. Political test has seven dimensions and so is better. The lost test I mentioned earlier was even better and extremely thorough but I am afraid it is gone to the abyss of the internet.

[pnwmom]

99. The rightwing economic philosophy is a core part of Libertarianism.

Just taking liberal positions on social issues doesn't make a person Libertarian.

[BlindTiresias]

100. Yes

Libertarianism as it understood via Mises, Hayek, Rothbard etc. But Chomsky is a left libertarian, for example. Libertarianism generally refers to how much authority governmental entities like the state should have over the citizenry, so a right libertarian thinks that corporate or some kind of business entity should have the supreme authority with the government acting as a weak binding actor of these interests. In contrast a left libertarian likely thinks that worker syndicates and democratic means of production should be supreme within a purely democratic structure that acts in the interests of these groups. They both clearly oppose a large degree of authority resting in the state but have very different models for how that should be accomplished.

[pnwmom]

108. There is nothing intrinsically less authoritarian

about a country run by "worker syndicates" and "democratic means of production" than a country run by a democratically elected government.

Communist China is an example of government run largely by worker syndicates, and democratic means of production, and no one would say it wasn't and isn't authoritarian.

[BlindTiresias]

109. What?

For the purposes of simplicity I shall refer to politicalcompass as a model representing ideological positions unless otherwise noted.

No, anarcho-syndicalism of the kind advocated for by Chomsky is inherently not authoritarian because the worker groups are not being directly controlled by a centralized authority and is not organized in a way to produce maximum order. The libertarian-authoritarian axis is one of overall order and the authority of a governing body. Authoritarians have a high degree of order seeking while libertarian systems think order focused systems produce sub-optimal outcomes at best. Subservience to this central authority is another key component, with authoritarians favoring less individual liberty and libertarians (as per the name) favoring more. The worker syndicates is a structural themselves are a structural component of the left-right axis and separate from the authoritarian-libertarian axis. The worker syndicate itself is a structural attempt to produce more equality. The core element of the left-right axis is more equality/inclusivity(Left) versus Less equality, be it left alone and left to natural forces/natural law or rigidly enforced for the sake of inducing hierarchy.

This is why collectivistic attempts at organizing an economy can be Authoritarian (Soviet Communism) or Libertarian(Anarcho-Syndicalism). Likewise, rightwing governments can be Authoritarian (Nazi Germany) or Libertarian (Randian Libertopia). I hope this clarifies matters as I realize my posts may be a lot to digest. I thank you for being patient with me so far.

[pnwmom]

110. And when in recorded history has there been a government

run along the lines Chomsky suggests?

[BlindTiresias]

112. A few times actually

There were anarcho-syndicalist groups in Republican Spain. The General Confederation of Labor in France is also expressly anarcho-syndicalist though it has moderated to some extent since the 90's. An Anarcho-Syndicalist union in Spain is also one of the largest iirc. I'm not saying it was hugely successful or anything but that it has existed and does still exist and there is lots of literature on the history and contemporary structure of that ideology.

[pnwmom]

122. There may have been "groups" in both countries, but they weren't running the country.

Even if they did manage to delay the start of the 2008 Tour de France.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)

According to the historian M. Dreyfus, the direction of the CGT is slowly evolving, since the 1990s, during which it cut all organic links with the French Communist Party (PCF), in favour of a more moderate stance. The CGT is concentrating its attention, in particular since the 1995 general strikes, to trade-unionism in the private sector.[2] The CGT was most recently[when?] in the news for briefly delaying Stage 3 of the Tour de France on July 7, 2008.

[BlindTiresias]

144. Not sure what your point is

Anarcho-syndcalist groups did control parts of Spain during the civil war, I believe the communards during the French Civil War of 1871 could also be characterized as libertarian communist. It is an ideology that does exist and has plenty of theory and praxis supporting it. That it is not a particularly successful position does not mean that it somehow does not exist as a position.

[greatlaurel]

104. Your OP has been attacked using the Gish Gallop

When they got nothing, just do the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop is being used all the time by the GOP, since their ideas are completely discredited.

Checked out those sites. Those sites are useless in comparing politicians' votes and statements. All those sites give very little information about who runs them, either. They seem to be collecting data on people without giving any information. At least OnTheIssues is very transparent about who is involved, which is an important point in its favor and you do not have to give them any information.

[BlindTiresias]

111. Please don't insult me

The structure of my posts in no way resembles the Gish Gallop, which for those unaware is when someone throws a flurry of arguments with little relation in an event to overwhelm their opponent with so many different points they cannot possibly address them. My central thesis is that Ontheissues does a good job at isolating policy events/statements of individuals but the model they are running their admittedly rigorous research through is -wrong- and not giving a complex enough portrait of the American political landscape. All those sites I posted are doing is applying a categorization schema to fairly modest interpretations of the mainstream views available in political science/political philosophy literature. These models are superior because they possess more axis along coherent ideological lines. In contrast the Ontheissues model which is based on an expressly right wing model is automatically skewed to a strong right wing bias while also somehow failing to express the complex variations in the contemporary right wing. If they change their model I would 100% support Ontheissues as their information gathering is actually very good.

For an experiment take a politicians statements and apply those to the alternative models I posted and watch the variations in ideological structure blossom. If you like I can run a few politicians through with the data on Ontheissues and apply it to what I view as superior models.

[antiquie]

129. This list is from the site in your OP:

Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget. (Sep 2000)
Protect next generation by paying off national debt. (Aug 2000)
Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%. (Jan 2008)
Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions. (Jan 2008)
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)
Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively. (Dec 2007)
Metal detectors at school are not much of an intrusion. (Jun 1999)
Opposes merit pay for individual teachers. (Apr 2000)
Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
For teens, not about birth control, but about self-control. (Jul 2007)
2001 speech to AIPAC pledges money for Israeli military. (Nov 2007)
Obligation to support Israel with more than foreign aid. (Oct 2005)
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills. (Oct 2000)
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights. (Oct 2000)
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Recommended "managed competition"; not single-payer system. (Nov 2003)
National security is more important than human rights. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 condoned exceptions on torture. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders. (Sep 2007)
Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism. (Aug 2000)
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label. (Jan 2010)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)

She seems to be on all sides of many issues.

[woo me with science]

92. BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh my WORD.

[greatlaurel]

101. Bernie Sanders is rated at 39% by CATO,

Hillary Clinton is rated at 17% by CATO. Seems like Clinton is better on free trade issues than Sanders. If CATO does not like her, that is a big positive.

[pnwmom]

124. Good point. She's the anti-CATO. n/t

[mike_c]

102. she's a third-way centrist who facilitated war crimes in Iraq...

...according to the analysis of her record by mike_c.

[HooptieWagon]

123. Thanks for the laugh.

[m-lekktor]

130. interesting. so apparently one can be a hawk and still a populist.

i guess i am not up on the definition of what a populist is.

[DeSwiss]

149. That boat has sailed and sunk.