Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:08 PM Sep 2014

Elizabeth 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.

“Isn’t 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 Clinton’s 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 wife’s urging.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/05/elizabeth-warren-when-it-counted-most-hillary-sided-with-the-vultures/

88 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren: When it counted most, Hillary sided with the vultures (Original Post) IDemo Sep 2014 OP
Kick and Rec for a Senator Warren challenge to the powers that be!!! NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #1
k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t Laelth Sep 2014 #2
The meat of the matter: djean111 Sep 2014 #3
H. Clinton-Sachs is part of the problem and not the solution. nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #5
+1! I cannot imagine HRC being part of the solution to our problems. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #53
Same thing with the Iraq resolution Doctor_J Sep 2014 #10
an enthusiasm-killer for sure Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #20
I think the word you're looking for is "phony." Hillary will say whateva she thinks the people she's talkin to wanna hear; it sickens me. InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2014 #29
yeah that's pretty close Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #58
Hillary on some issues Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #4
When she accepted $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs for her personal wealth, what do you think rhett o rick Sep 2014 #6
When Warren accepted donations from corporations what do you think she told them? Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #7
Are you comparing campaign contributions to bribes? The $400,000 was a payment that rhett o rick Sep 2014 #40
for that vote and so much more AtomicKitten Sep 2014 #84
Yeah... Learned That Painful Lesson Many Years Ago... Just Because They Look Like Liberals... WillyT Sep 2014 #8
It goes by their records, easily established liberals. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #13
Really ??? - How Do You Define "Liberal" ??? WillyT Sep 2014 #17
Bill and Hillary are fine examples of liberals Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #21
You Funny !!! WillyT Sep 2014 #23
Who is your example of liberal? Perhaps doing a google search will help you Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #24
You have got to be kidding. ReRe Sep 2014 #26
Actually some are so that argument does not fly. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #32
Don't talk to me about what "doesn't fly" n/t ReRe Sep 2014 #36
Many right-wingers think corporations are liberal. stillwaiting Sep 2014 #50
They like to call themselves "neoliberals" ReRe Sep 2014 #51
Her position on the bill was not even center-right Ash_F Sep 2014 #37
No, they are not. sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #42
In that case may the FSM save us. hobbit709 Sep 2014 #48
I'm praying as we speak. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #55
Uh-uh fadedrose Sep 2014 #77
He should have inhaled. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #54
Yet I am afraid she's the only Dem that can win in 16 Doctor_J Sep 2014 #9
I'm not seeing any GOP juggernauts to justify that leap Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #22
How msny times has Hillary run for office? Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #33
Technically, three times Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #57
Not a chance. Any challenge from the left will crush her. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #27
Last poll I saw showed her poll numbers go down fadedrose Sep 2014 #78
Meh. I think she'd get enough of the women's vote to win comfortably Doctor_J Sep 2014 #79
Balls. Anyone with a functioning brain could beat the current crop of R's. Jester Messiah Sep 2014 #81
Where does Warren say that? Misleading 'click bait' headline wyldwolf Sep 2014 #11
Thanks for your post, hopefully this clears up some of the doubts and get the horse and cart Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #12
it only takes SECONDS to debunk shit like this. I use an amazing tool called... wyldwolf Sep 2014 #14
There you go, easy to do. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #15
You didn't Google far enough Oilwellian Sep 2014 #35
My post clearly states she voted in favor in 2001 wyldwolf Sep 2014 #46
voting for a bill that didn't pass is worth the paper it's printed on. hobbit709 Sep 2014 #49
No argument from me on that point wyldwolf Sep 2014 #52
Wow BainsBane Sep 2014 #16
left wing fundamentalism is just as bad as right wing fundamentalism. Lies are a means to an end. wyldwolf Sep 2014 #18
You know, I have no stand on any presidential candidate BainsBane Sep 2014 #19
Because Bobbie Jo Sep 2014 #67
Thank you, I was just preparing a huge reply to this with the video in it. You've done this well. freshwest Sep 2014 #41
Elizabeth Warren: I highly recommend DemocraticUnderground.com Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #25
K&R for the truth! Yes, I heard Warren say that, too! wyldwolf Sep 2014 #62
Thank you, IDemo ReRe Sep 2014 #28
You're forgetting that the headline is a total fabrication. NYC Liberal Sep 2014 #30
But you will have to admit... ReRe Sep 2014 #31
It's not a total or even partial fabrication. There's a doughnut and there's a hole. Jim Lane Sep 2014 #38
It's a complete fabrication wyldwolf Sep 2014 #47
"Misleading 'click bait' headline"? Yes. "Complete fabrication"? No. Jim Lane Sep 2014 #82
You've lost the context of this subthread wyldwolf Sep 2014 #85
In this context -- I still disagree with you Jim Lane Sep 2014 #86
which is fine. Sorry you spent so much time trying to parse a completely fabricated headline wyldwolf Sep 2014 #87
It's a good thing she is not running for POTUS. Rex Sep 2014 #34
The GOP has got us playing their game! Deadbeat Republicans Sep 2014 #39
What does Warren say today about Clinton? That is what she said years ago, but she seems to have sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #43
Warren is a team player. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #44
She voted for GHW Bush over Bill Clinton. She voted for Reagan and for Nixon, for every Republican Bluenorthwest Sep 2014 #56
She was Republican and then changed Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #59
Yes, lots of people have changed over time. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #61
So, can I conclude it is okay when people change over time? Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #64
That is a hugely ambiguous question, Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #65
Remember you are the one saying people change over the years, do you wish to change your statement? Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #66
You were trying to corner me into putting a value judgment on all change. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #68
If it works for one then it should work for all. I think I will use this in the future. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #72
Not always for the better. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #73
When she was needed most, she sided with the vultchers, the bigots, with her own damn Party Bluenorthwest Sep 2014 #63
K&R emsimon33 Sep 2014 #45
K&R! For speaking the truth Katashi_itto Sep 2014 #60
LOL Egnever Sep 2014 #69
Good thing she's inevitable isn't it? Katashi_itto Sep 2014 #71
She isn't even a candidate Egnever Sep 2014 #74
You mean she didn't side with vultures? Katashi_itto Sep 2014 #75
And this hifiguy Sep 2014 #70
Let's define "liberal" properly--it gets confusing unless you do Lydia Leftcoast Sep 2014 #76
And there it is: The Truth. Jester Messiah Sep 2014 #80
Late to the party, but appreciate the post. That was an excellent interview! nt adirondacker Sep 2014 #83
K&R woo me with science Sep 2014 #88
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. The meat of the matter:
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:25 PM
Sep 2014
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.”
 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
10. Same thing with the Iraq resolution
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:49 PM
Sep 2014

she voted for it, then wants to renounce it, but talks bellicosely. Who is she?

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
20. an enthusiasm-killer for sure
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:41 PM
Sep 2014

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)
29. I think the word you're looking for is "phony." Hillary will say whateva she thinks the people she's talkin to wanna hear; it sickens me.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:45 PM
Sep 2014
 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
58. yeah that's pretty close
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:22 AM
Sep 2014

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)
4. Hillary on some issues
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:32 PM
Sep 2014

•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)
6. When she accepted $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs for her personal wealth, what do you think
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:35 PM
Sep 2014

she told them? Maybe, "Hey guys, thanks for the $400k but I still represent the people."

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
7. When Warren accepted donations from corporations what do you think she told them?
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:42 PM
Sep 2014

Do you work? Do you get paid for your work? What do you tell your employer?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
40. Are you comparing campaign contributions to bribes? The $400,000 was a payment that
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:33 AM
Sep 2014

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.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
50. Many right-wingers think corporations are liberal.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:57 AM
Sep 2014

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)
51. They like to call themselves "neoliberals"
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 08:16 AM
Sep 2014

... 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.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
77. Uh-uh
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:18 PM
Sep 2014

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.

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
22. I'm not seeing any GOP juggernauts to justify that leap
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:52 PM
Sep 2014

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.

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
57. Technically, three times
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:13 AM
Sep 2014

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.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
78. Last poll I saw showed her poll numbers go down
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:21 PM
Sep 2014

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)
79. Meh. I think she'd get enough of the women's vote to win comfortably
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:55 PM
Sep 2014

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)
81. Balls. Anyone with a functioning brain could beat the current crop of R's.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 08:11 PM
Sep 2014

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)
11. Where does Warren say that? Misleading 'click bait' headline
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:59 PM
Sep 2014


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

HINOJOSA: There's a story that I wanna share with our listeners that you actually shared when you were on Now—on our TV program and it's a fascinating story about Hillary Clinton. You said that when the credit card companies were pushing for legislation to tighten the bankruptcy laws, and this is when President Clinton was in office you were summoned by Hillary Clinton to discuss this legislation. And you sat down with her in this back room and you filled her in on what this new bankruptcy law was gonna mean.

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:

WARREN: ... So it was one thing for Mrs. Clinton to be First Lady and not running for office and tell President Clinton what she felt about this bill. And then very different for Senator Clinton who had to get political contributions and run her—her campaign—she voted differently. Now I wanna be fair in this story.

Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure position—as Senator a couple of years later—when the bill came up once again—Senator Clinton was not there—the 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. I—I 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:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.


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 is a terrible article. The emphasis of this interview (either in broadcast and the exclusive online content) focuses mainly on Senator Warren's crusade to help the middle class and very, very little on Hillary Clinton. In fact, when Moyers presents the clip from the ten-year old interview and seems to seek new comments on Ms. Clinton from Warren the senator refocuses the conversation back to the issues. She avoids being placed in opposition to a fellow party member. Warren nearly excuses Clintons actions by talking about the pressures of being a senator versus a First Lady.

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)
12. Thanks for your post, hopefully this clears up some of the doubts and get the horse and cart
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:29 PM
Sep 2014

Back in the road.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
35. You didn't Google far enough
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 11:32 PM
Sep 2014
Sen. Hillary Clinton is on the defensive for another vote aligned with President Bush early in her legislative career: this one for a measure to make it more difficult to erase personal debts through bankruptcy.

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.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
19. You know, I have no stand on any presidential candidate
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:40 PM
Sep 2014

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)
67. Because
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 01:02 PM
Sep 2014

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)
41. Thank you, I was just preparing a huge reply to this with the video in it. You've done this well.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 02:16 AM
Sep 2014

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.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
28. Thank you, IDemo
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:42 PM
Sep 2014

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?

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
31. But you will have to admit...
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 11:15 PM
Sep 2014

... 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)
38. It's not a total or even partial fabrication. There's a doughnut and there's a hole.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:16 AM
Sep 2014

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)
47. It's a complete fabrication
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:09 AM
Sep 2014

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)
82. "Misleading 'click bait' headline"? Yes. "Complete fabrication"? No.
Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:18 PM
Sep 2014

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)
85. You've lost the context of this subthread
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 06:02 AM
Sep 2014

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)
86. In this context -- I still disagree with you
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 01:27 PM
Sep 2014

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.

39. The GOP has got us playing their game!
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:17 AM
Sep 2014

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)
43. What does Warren say today about Clinton? That is what she said years ago, but she seems to have
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 02:28 AM
Sep 2014

changed her mind.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
44. Warren is a team player.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 03:03 AM
Sep 2014

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)
56. She voted for GHW Bush over Bill Clinton. She voted for Reagan and for Nixon, for every Republican
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:41 AM
Sep 2014

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.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
61. Yes, lots of people have changed over time.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 11:10 AM
Sep 2014

Consider Bob LaFollette, for example.

A 1982 survey asking historians to rank the "ten greatest Senators in the nation's history" based on "accomplishments in office" and "long range impact on American history," placed La Follette first, tied with Henry Clay.

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.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
65. That is a hugely ambiguous question,
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:45 PM
Sep 2014

reminiscent of some of the slimier cross-examinations I have undergone over the years.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
72. If it works for one then it should work for all. I think I will use this in the future.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 04:43 PM
Sep 2014

People do change, conditions change and we evolve.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
63. When she was needed most, she sided with the vultchers, the bigots, with her own damn Party
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 11:32 AM
Sep 2014

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)
75. You mean she didn't side with vultures?
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 06:48 PM
Sep 2014

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.


Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
76. Let's define "liberal" properly--it gets confusing unless you do
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 07:11 PM
Sep 2014

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)
80. And there it is: The Truth.
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 08:07 PM
Sep 2014

I say: No to Hillary. Give me a candidate for whom I can vote without holding my nose.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Elizabeth Warren: When it...