General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren: When it counted most, Hillary sided with the vultures
Friday, September 5, 2014 17:48 EDT
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Moyers and Company host Bill Moyers sparred on Friday after Moyers replayed comments Warren made 10 years ago regarding Hillary Clinton and her policy shift on a bankruptcy bill that Warren opposed.
Isnt it time to get real ideologically? Moyers asked. The neoliberal movement of the last 30 years has run itself into the ground. And you know as well as I do, it still, nonetheless, has a hold on establishment Democrats. To be frank, Mrs. Clinton, for all the admiration and respect she commands for her years in public life, is the embodiment of that establishment, that movement. Do you think the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party can put the country back on a path away from corporate and plutocratic control?
The way I see this is that we change as a people, Warren replied. The issues that face us are more visible than they were before the 2008 crash.
In a 2004 interview, the two discussed a meeting between Warren and Clinton, then First Lady, toward the end of Bill Clintons presidency regarding a bill that would have made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy from credit card debts. Following the meeting, President Clinton killed the bill with a pocket veto, at his wifes urging.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/05/elizabeth-warren-when-it-counted-most-hillary-sided-with-the-vultures/
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
djean111
(14,255 posts)But after being elected to the Senate, Hillary Clinton voted for the bill when it was re-introduced.
As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different, Warren told Moyers in the 2004 interview, adding, She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
On Friday, Moyers asked Warren how people can trust their legislators are more likely to pay more attention to the donors.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)she voted for it, then wants to renounce it, but talks bellicosely. Who is she?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)and a person who is way too desperate to be important, for reasons that don't seem healthy - and she doesn't play nice, either
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Ever known one of those people who will be extremely nasty to people they know (often their own family) behind closed doors, and be able to turn on a dime to present a nicest-person-ever facade to the rest of the world?
Phony certainly fits, but feels less than complete as a descriptor.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter. (Jan 2008)
Her record on voting doesn't agree with Hillary on tv side of vultures.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she told them? Maybe, "Hey guys, thanks for the $400k but I still represent the people."
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Do you work? Do you get paid for your work? What do you tell your employer?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)went directly into H. Clinton's pocket. It was an "investment" by Goldman-Sachs for future consideration. If you wondered how she went from being broke 15 years ago to being in the top 1% of the wealthiest, maybe it's spelled "CORRUPTION".
Goldman-Sachs gave her $400,000, not as a campaign donation, but as a personal payment to enrichen her personal wealth. It's corruption.
She has no integrity, she gave it to George Bush in 2002.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 02:07 AM - Edit history (2)
she's about to encounter some blowback
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Know their records.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)That's like saying "The Corporation" is liberal.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It amazes me, but they do.
To clarify for any right-wingers reading this and LOL'ing:
Some big corporations may be socially liberal, but there are very, very, VERY few corporations today that are left-wing/liberal on overall economic policies. That's the part where our standard of living and economic well-being as working-class, middle-class, and poor Americans comes in to play.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... that comes from the multi-nationals going around the world cursing one nation after another with their "neo-liberal Shock Doctrine" or "Disaster Capitalism." (Read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.) There is nothing "liberal" about cut-throat Corporations. Remember, The Corporation is beholding to no body but itself, to it's bottom line.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Please explain her position.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)they are fine examples of liberal Republicans, or also, an example of conservative democrats.
but in no way can they be described as Liberal Democrats.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)We're between a rock and nutty righty.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)and I don't agree that she is the strongest candidate for us either. Other than being insufferably arrogant and more than a bit creepy, she has no record of winning any remotely competitive election. The only office she ever won, Senator from NY, she intimidated Nita Lowey to step aside from an easily won Senate seat to make way for Her Majesty.
We still want that hope and change... we voted for it and we're not going to vote for a continuation of the status quo, something no one represents better than Hillary Clinton. Enough of the lying for fun and profit. We need more serious people whose hearts are really devoted to sorting out the very real problems this country has now.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Twice for US Senator (NY) and once for President.
The Senate campaigns were ridiculously non-competitive because of the electoral environment in NY. A fresh turd could (did) win a Senate seat in that state on the D line.
The one competitive race she ran, against Obama, we all know the result. What some may not remember is how much of a longshot Obama appeared to be at first, especially against her alleged-inevitability aura.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Don't ask for a link, it was on the teevee. Some folks wouldn't buy into them being dead broke.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)against whatever crackpot the goop rolls out. OTOH Sanders would have no chance. Maybe O'Malley can run a "white man but not kooky" campaign. Doesn't much matter to me but we have to do something to get the 2008 voters out.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)It's the perfect time to run a candidate who would actually be good for the non-wealthy. Are we going to waste this opportunity running a pro-corporate shill like Clinton?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Can you quote the passage? The piece goes to show 'progressive' sources are about as reliable as FOX News.
It only took me 30 seconds of Googling to find this from a 2007 PBS interview between Maria Hinojosa and Elizabeth Warren
And she at that moment said, "Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen." It gets passed in Congress and Bill Clinton, because of Hillary's conversation with you more or less, vetoes that bill. Now we fast forward to Senator Hillary Clinton, bankruptcy law comes for a vote and she votes for it?
WARREN: Yes.
This excerpt was quoted and posted a lot at the time - not as any statement on Warren because none of us knew who she was back then. Rather, it was meant damning evidence of how Senator Clinton has changed.
But Warren made a clarification in that interview and gave, in my opinion, some very insightful information about working in Washington that we already know:
Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure positionas Senator a couple of years laterwhen the bill came up once againSenator Clinton was not therethe day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it. II tell my story not to try to thump Senator Clinton but the story is important because it's a reminder of how money talks in Washington.
Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:
I also want to add Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - both times - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
As a side note, Joe Biden not only voted for the 2005 bill, he rallied around it.
on edit:
Here's a great comment on the story:
This interview is not about Hillary Clinton and is not about 2016 presidential issues. Sen. Warren is clearly frustrated with Moyers' desire to illicit some information about Warren's intentions in 2016 because she clearly believes that right now the emphasis should be on the 2014 election in which the balance of power in Congress is in question. While there may be some questions regarding Hillary Clinton's position as a progressive now is not the time and here, in front the Bill Moyers audience, is not the place.
Writing a headline and article about such a small and insignificant segment of this interview - most of which is based on comments made ten years ago - is misleading and irresponsible. It is typical of the kind of "click-bait" mentality blogs like this use to spike residuals for your advertisers, steer debate away from real issues that actually impact our lives and generally distort the meaning of what is and is not true discourse.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Back in the road.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)As the focus of debate for presidential candidates shifts from Iraq to the economy, Sen. Barack Obama has stepped up criticism of Sen. Clinton's 2001 bankruptcy vote, just as he has hammered her for her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq War. The Illinois Democrat is citing Mrs. Clinton's bankruptcy vote as an example of why he is better-suited to protect consumers in an increasingly uncertain economic time.
And just as Mrs. Clinton has tried to distance herself from her Iraq vote, she has said she regrets her bankruptcy vote and wishes she could have it back.
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 that Sen. Clinton voted for eventually died in Congress, but a similar measure became law in 2005. Sen. Clinton has said she would have opposed the 2005 bill, but she missed the vote because she was with her husband during surgery.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120113997862512117
So she did vote for the damn Bill and it is YOU who is twisting the truth.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Your little tirade is also debunked.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)If people are so convinced they are in the right, why do they so distort?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and won't until they have declared and the election is underway, but I have to say this sort of thing doesn't do their cause any good in my book.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The proclivity for a number of members to accept misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies, has been demonstrated here repeatedly.
As someone else noted in this thread, the ends justify the means.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Those who idolize Moyers despite his 'concern' trolling of Warren won't want to hear what I lined out on what the messages behind his questions were, that appeal to conservative deflectors. She rejected every single one and he kept trying different tactics, but she was diplomatic and didn't buy any of it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)as long as we are making shit up.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)The truth is really starting to stick out. Let's see, there's Pro-Corporate, Pro-XL Pipeline, Pro- Monsanto, Pro-Kissinger. Someone help me out, what am I forgetting?
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... that what I said was not a lie.
And since you brought it up, where is the fabrication in the title of this OP?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Hillary the consumer champion supposedly urged her husband to veto the bill, and he did; I haven't done any research to see how solid this story is or how important her advice was in the President's decision.
Then Hillary the corporatist voted for the bill. This actually happened. It's on record.
Then Hillary the consumer champion spoke against the bill and said she would have voted against it; given that her husband had a major medical issue at the time, I think most people would agree that she had a valid excuse for not actually voting either way.
Clinton partisans are not entitled to cherry-pick the parts of her record that they like and say that anything running counter to the current narrative is a "total fabrication". The only fair conclusion here is that her record is mixed.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Show us, oh wise one, where Elizabeth Warren said what the 0P says that she said. Show us the passage. Copy and paste it here. Tell us which line in the article or at what point in the video Elizabeth Warren says that. We are waiting to see it
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I was commenting on the substance of the article and on the attempts of some Clinton apologists to deflect attention from her vote. The headline seemed to me to be less important.
If, however, you want to get all argumentative (not to mention snarky) about the particular wording chosen by Raw Story, then here's my analysis:
1. There was a bill that would benefit some rapacious elements of the financial industry at the expense of many ordinary people. True.
2. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for that bill. True.
3. Elizabeth Warren criticized the bill. True.
4. Warren, in criticizing the bill, said that Clinton had "sided with the vultures." False.
Based on point (4), the Raw Story headline can reasonably be characterized as a misleading click bait headline, as you did in post #11. Based on points (1) through (3), however, it's not a total fabrication. It's taking undisputed facts, putting a particular spin on them (a spin that's justified, in my opinion), but exaggerating the extent to which and the manner in which Warren expressed agreement with that spin.
A "complete fabrication" would be if Clinton had voted against the bill or if Warren had supported the bill. Neither of those things is true.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)You're forgetting that the headline is a total fabrication. - NYC Liberal
It's not a total or even partial fabrication. There's a doughnut and there's a hole. - Jim Lane
(Your reply here is FALSE. In discussing the headlines, it is a total fabrication.)
It's (meaning the headline - the subject the three of us are discussing) a complete fabrication - wyldwolf
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)An accurate but impracticably unwieldy headline would have been: "In addressing a bill that Clinton voted for, Warren condemned it as unjustly catering to the interests of financial institutions that exploited people."
The actual headline conveys that accurate information.
It's misleading because, in addition, it falsely implies that Warren specifically attacked Clinton for her vote. It conceals the fact that, instead of following her position to its logical conclusion and attacking Clinton, Warren alluded to other factors (the political pressures on Clinton early in her Senatorial career).
In my post #82 I enumerated three specific truthful points that were conveyed by the headline. I consider those points to be the most important substantive information. Even if you choose instead to downplay them (relative importance is a subjective matter), you haven't disputed my contention that the headline conveys those points, nor have you disputed my contention that those points are true. That's why "complete fabrication" is an unfair characterization.
I agree with you, however, that "misleading" is a fair characterization. In #11 you concluded that "'progressive' sources are about as reliable as FOX News." I'll agree to the extent that progressive sources can't be taken as infallible just because they're progressive, and that some of them sometimes jump to conclusions, garble quotations, spin facts in misleading ways, fall for hoaxes, etc. To say that the lefty media, taken as a whole, are only as reliable as Fox News is, however, a huge overstatement. Even on the right, outfits like National Review and The Wall Street Journal are significantly more reliable than Fox. Among major media outlets, Fox is really in a class by itself.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Deadbeat Republicans
(111 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)
They're thinking about 2 years down the road, their neanderthal reasoning is, their do-nothing candidates eat lead paint chips, that, and they're waiting for an October surprise to boost their popularity.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)changed her mind.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)She won't attack Hillary. She campaigns for Blue Dogs. I think she works strategically, and sees that she can advance her agenda most effectively with a Dem Congress & Dem chairs regardless of the details of their political proclivities. She doesn't want to weaken the party.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in her State. When her Party was committing the most ignorant and bigoted attacks on LGBT people and upon the public health, she rallied with them and for them.
Has she explained that? How she was a Reaganomics Republican conservative for decades of her adult life? How she stood with the anti gay, anti choice crusade counting her growing millions?
She has zero room to challenge anyone's liberal history. She was a team player alright, a player for Team Republican.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Consider Bob LaFollette, for example.
In the early 1890s, he began to believe that much of the Republican Party had abandoned the ideals of its antislavery origins and become a tool for corporate interests. In his home state, he was convinced industry and railroad interests had too much sway over the party.[2] To counter this, La Follette began building an independent organization within the party that stressed voter control.[2]
In 1891, La Follette claimed that Philetus Sawyer, one of Wisconsin's Senators and a powerful Republican leader, attempted to bribe him in order to fix a case.[2] The incident cemented La Follette's resolve to reform the party. The party dissidents who joined La Follette became known as "Insurgents"[citation needed] (or the "Progressive" faction), and their opponents within the party were called the "Stalwarts".[citation needed]
The Insurgents stressed the need for more direct voter control and championed consumer rights.[citation needed] The Insurgents' call for reform gained more support after the Panic of 1893 shook up the economic, class, and ethnic assumptions held by most Americans.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)reminiscent of some of the slimier cross-examinations I have undergone over the years.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)My statement stands.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)People do change, conditions change and we evolve.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm very sorry, but she has no room to accuse others of being in the wrong at important times in history. She was part of the Party that did immeasurable harm to the LGBT community out of hatred and ignorance.
It is great if people change, but to prop up a person who was on the side of death and hatred and say 'that other one sided with the bad guys' is hypocritical.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)But that won't stop you from cheering nonsense as truth I am sure.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Really?
Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto, and she rightly should, Warren said at the time. She turned around a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy.
Or when she helped craft the TPP...
Tell me another Please!
Your a riot
Nonsense? Project a lot don't you.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is surprising?? Not at all.
K&R for truth.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)There are two axes here, behavioral and economic.
A behavioral liberal is against discrimination of all kinds, wants to liberalize or repeal the laws on drugs and sexual behavior, and will, whenever possible, opt for restitution and rehabilitation instead of punishment.
A political-economic liberal is for progressive taxation, toothy regulations on business, generous social services, as little war as possible, support for labor unions, campaign finance reform.
A person can be either or both.
Libertarians are liberals on the behavioral scale but hard-right conservatives on the political-economic scale.
Mennonites are liberals on the political-economic scale but lean conservative on the behavioral scale.
From what I have seen of Bill and Hillary, they are probably pretty liberal on behavioral issues.
On economic issues, however, they're right up there with Wall Street, as is Obama.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I say: No to Hillary. Give me a candidate for whom I can vote without holding my nose.