General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't know what Hillary actually believes in.
Does she think climate change is a big threat? She says so, but she is a strong supporter of big oil and fracking. She is no longer SoS but she refuses to state a position on the Keystone pipeline.
Does she believe the income gap is a threat to the integrity of the nation? She says so but she is strong supporter of Wall Street and has voiced support for outsourcing jobs. She isn't just a supporter of the TPP, but one of its principle architects.
And this sort of gap between her current words and her actions distills the problem with Hillary for me.
I know she's really a supporter of choice- she's always been consistent on that issue and on women's rights, but on issues of war and peace, environmental issues and economic issues, she has not been a strong advocate of policies that support her recent rhetoric.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Hillary is just another Republican lite. If Hillary would like the next occupant in the White House to be a Republican then she should run but if she does run and wins there will still be a Republican in the White House on Jan 20 2017 (But she cannot win and Bill should be able to pick this out of the political winds)
Sanders/Warren or
Warren/Sanders
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)center right than why not just vote for a Republican.....Hillary is a Republican lite supported by billionaires and the corporate world. Sanders and Warren have the corporate world shaking in the booties.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)After Congress has a security brief and they both failed to the need of action I wonder if either is suitable for the position of president and should just remain in Congress to try to pass laws on corporations who are shaking in their booties.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)I really really really really really... really - did I state, REALLY? - hope he runs..
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary will be supported by Elizabeth Warren as well
I hope she will works hard in the 2014 election, get as many
democrats elected as she can. Her team has sent people to
all the state races. When Hillary is elected she will bring in a majority
of both houses, and she will be able to enact Bernie's and Elizabeth Warrens
bills, we need a big win in 2016 to make real changes.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Jeb vs Hillary. Either one we all lose. Makes everyone I know want to drop out of politics and resolve things in the streets.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If you think Jeb and Hillary are the same, you have not been paying
attention: Jeb push supports a right wring GOP. The democratic party
which Hillary supports is a peoples party that supports Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren. Democratic party believes in science and civil
rights just to name a few more differences, but differences are endless.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)These two only pretend to be different. It's theater for the gullible. A distraction of cultural differences for the masses. What matters most to the evil ones who pull the strings is foreign policy and these two ate just two wings if the same bird pulling us down. They are best buddies behind the veil. I appreciate your positive nature but I've simply learned two much about these two families joined at the hip since I've been working for the Democratic Party since 1985.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)anointed one for the nomination. She has billionaires and millionaires lined up to boost her campaign with $$ She is a Wall St. Republican and she sure as hell has not done much for the middle class.
If you disagree, name one piece of legislation that she supported while in the Senate that directly affected working class America. Hillary goes where the money flows..her speeches are drafted so as not to piss off Wall St,the oil companies,and corporate America, while pretending to be all gung ho and ready to fight for the middle class. Now with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren what you see is what you get and Wall St hate these two. They tremble at the thought of one of them occupying the White House and that is why we need them to run.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is smart politician, one needs to get the power first to make change, when
she does she will be in position to make the corporation dance
to our tune. Obama had to make deals with billionaires. Hillary and Bill have done more for
the middle class than any other democrats, they had the most successful economy
our country has ever known. African employment went to low single digits, My personal
income tripled and I was able to buy a house for the first time. Hillary and Bill need
to play the game, but in the end they have batted for the middle class. Bernie
Sanders and Warren talk about the middle class and put bills forward to fail,
Hilary when she get in office will be the one to sign them into law. They
only way we will bet Bernie's and Warrens bills done is have Hillary and
Bill play the political games that need to be done and win.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Gonna be hard for Sanders to support Clinton when he's going to primary her. Now, if she wins the primary, I'm sure he'll either support her as he has no desire to hand the Republicans the WH. As for enacting a progressive agenda, I highly doubt that. No, I guarantee she won't.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Actions speak louder than words and Bernie has both. His vision for all Americans is backed up by his terrific public servant work
for all Americans. I am even counting the wealthiest because in a more equitable society their lives improve (the rising tide
metaphor). Sadly they have conveniently forgotten this bit of history.
When FDR steered America to a more equitable society, the wealthiest among us took pride (and tax deductions..) in being benefactors.
Of course, there were still those whose greed steered them to fight and eventually repeal most of the legislation that that was beneficial to all.
IMO, sociopathic mentality should be discussed, taught in schools, etc.. much like schizophrenia and being bi-polar. Then it could be spotted easier and treated.It IS a mental illness that is detrimental to all exposed. My sister is bi-polar and has it pretty much under control. She is loved by most people who know her and they have no idea that she has to struggle with this illness.
Instead, in America sociopaths are admired for their traits instead of being treated for them. They are highly sought after for positions of "captains of industry", lobbyists, politicians, even doctors.
TPTB are sociopaths, too bad they aren't being medically treated and taught how to be good shepherds...
Enough of my rant but I do believe society would greatly benefit if this illness was brought into the light and treated like other mental health issues.
What a role model Bernie Sanders is, he would make an excellent President.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I can't recall, but you summed up my feelings about her very well.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)When that failed, she missed the actual vote because Bill Clinton was in the hospital for an emergency heart operation. As the filibuster failed because 60 Senators voted to defeat it - there was no chance that the actual vote would fail. I dare anyone to say that HRC should have stayed in DC to cast a vote when it was hopeless rather than being at her husband's side.
Where she has some vulnerability is that she, like John Edwards and Joe Biden, voted for a 2001 bill that was very similar. The bill ultimately failed to become law.
Then again, she is said to have pushed BC to be against the bill earlier when he was President.
The result of all of this is that you could make a case either way. The one thing you can not do is to make a case that she was a strong leader against having a stronger (ie worse) bankruptcy bill or a strong leader for it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about issues, except the safe ones for a Dem.
As the OP said, and your post demonstrates why the question has to be asked 'where does she stand on the issues'?
We need a strong leader who is clear on the issues, who gets it RIGHT when it's a critical decision, like the Iraq War vote, she got it so wrong, and has never apologized for it, so clearly she wasn't 'misled' she actually supported Bush.
If she runs, it's very possible a Republican will win the election. Polls showing support for her among Dems mean nothing. Add a few other candidates and that support will fade away.
But it seems the people have little to say about this, except when it comes time to vote.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)The polls have listed many possible alternatives, and she gets over 50% of the total. That is not to say that this could not change. It could - in 2005 - 2006, she usually polled in the high 40s - lower than now - but still high enough that it was very likely the nomination was hers.
To win, Obama and his team not only had to run an exceptionally good primary race, they needed things to happen that they did not control. They needed Hillary Clinton to run no better than a mediocre campaign and they needed support from at least some important Democrats. They got both. Clinton's campaign undoubtedly believed the hype that they were the best campaign operatives that the Democratic party had and they made glaring mistakes - most notably not having planned or even really set up for post super Tuesday races because they were so certain that she would clinch things then. Kennedy and Kerry were big gets that the Obama team got.
However, this time they remember 2008. There is no way they won't dot every i and cross every t. In addition, they have more actively worked to push her campaign this year and last than they did in the comparable time. In 2005/2006, I doubt they saw Obama as a threat - if they had they would have found a way to take him down. I doubt that anyone will be able to build up adequate support to be seen as a challenger under the radar this time. Additionally, who are important Democrats whose endorsement in a primary could make people even give a candidate a second look. She was Obama's SoS and he has been supportive though she has recently tried to distance herself. Kennedy is dead, Kerry, as SoS, is out of politics. Others on the left, Dean included have been positive about HRC - maybe because they do not want the Clintons against them and would like a role in government.
You could be right that her popularity could fall when the race actually starts. The best hope for that is Iowa and NH, where it really is retail politics. This is where someone, not favored by the party or media, could win and get momentum going forward. (Three recent examples - Obama, Kerry and Carter. Though Obama was a favorite of some media.)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)country's electoral system.
But why is she the most likely Democratic Nominee? Who decides these things? This is a big country with a whole lot of people who would represent the voters far more effectively than Hillary has done.
I don't get this inevitability thing. It sounds more like 'entitlement', that one person is the entitled 'successor', sort of the way monarchies work.
I don't care frankly if she is the nominee, I certainly hope not, I won't be supporting her because of her Corporate and Foreign Policy record which we do know about. This country comes first and it is the duty of the Dem Party to provide support for numerous candidates, not to annoint someone without any input from the voters or other viable candidates.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)The point I was making is that Iowa (and NH) demand the candidates speak to them and answer questions. One problem Hillary had last time was that she thought she did not really need to do that. Iowa and NH are about the only places where the input is more what they heard and saw first hand vs through the media.
As to why she is the most likely nominee - at this point, it is because there is a large group of people, who have always wanted her to be President, and she has the support of many in the news media and in the party. These things make it very hard for anyone else to raise the money needed to run. Without the ability to raise money, you would need to be independently wealthy to even contest Iowa. This does leave the possibility that a candidate that people want could raise money via the internet, but first he/she would need to be visible enough to gain a following.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who want her in the WH. I met some of them through my job, met her also. I can say this from what I observed, they are not people who are particularly supportive of paying the working class adequate wages for the work they do.
I supported her at that time, but didn't know much about how it all works, I was one of those who just supported Dems, pretty blindly. The people I worked for are close friends of the Clintons and helped Clinton get elected both times. Hillary is a favorite of theirs. While I enjoyed the job, and didn't really need the money as it was a part time job and I had another job. I will just say this, while the spent thousands on a dinner party, their reputation for underpaying the workers made it difficult for them to hire people and, to keep them.
While they talked a good talk about issues like equal pay and fair wages when speaking publicly, in RL it was far from being put into practice.
Talk is cheap. I don't pay much attention anymore to what politicians say, I look at how they vote, what they fight passionately for, not just talk about during campaign season. And Hillary's voting record speaks for her, especially when she had a chance to case what has turned out to be an historic opportunity to try to stop the disaster that we are and will be dealing with for at least decades. A good leader would have known better. Even an apology later doesn't cut it. Leaders need to be on top of these things, not trying to close the gate after the horse has fled.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Herself and $. Which for all practical purposes is just one thing.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I have to say I agree.
Boreal
(725 posts)That's what I want to know. When she ran for the senate she reported her net worth between twelve and FIFTY million. Where the fuck did that money come from> Didn't she just say how broke they were when they left the WH? That sob story about having to come up with money for mortgages (PLURAL). The next thing you know they're worth 12-50 million? Really? Now I think it's the over 100 million range. We're talking Romney money here. Where did that come from? Did they steal it from from the Clinton Global Initiative? Skim off the donations for Haiti (where people are still living tents, btw)? Take bribes? No way in hell speaking engagements and books raked in that kind of bank.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)He still refers to Bill Clinton as his "5th Son". Billy helped cover up IranContra crimes and CIA cocaine and heroin importation as well as page the way for Bush Jr to win. I bet they stole money from the 2004 Tsunami Relief Fund Bush Sr and Clinton promoted to divert donations.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Ash: You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
-Alien (1979)
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)OMG, some of the folks on here are way too clever. That quote, in this context, was hysterical. 
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)To win and get things done for the American people, and
not just talk about change: democrats must obtain power, Hillary
and Bill are the democrats insiders to power. No just
pie in sky hopes for changes.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What we say we believe, what we consciously believe, and what we carelessly do are often not in sync.
I'll be the first to admit my ideals outperform my actual performance. Otherwise I'd be 100 lbs lighter, and working out in the middle of nowhere with impoverished communities. Life and the associated commitments of family and society tie us down and prevent us from doing everything we wish we could, unless we're willing to simply place our desires and ideals ahead of all else.
People tell you what they wish they were, what they wish they could do and be, not always what they'll actually do and be, even if given the chance.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But as a head of state and a leader of struggling nation, we need clear direction and policy, not empty rhetoric. We have to be able to hold them accountable. If HRC does not enact progressive policies when she was able to, then I think it's clear who she is.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)We've known Hillary since the early 90's now. Over twenty years in one form or another. And she has had a lot of forms, which is good. In addition to all that she is in her personal life, she's been a First Lady, a Senator and the Secretary of State. That's solid credits right there and certainly more than some others that have run for office.
But it still feels like it's hard to pin down what she really stands for because, as is part of the job, she's had to play the politics of it rather than the personal side of it. Because when she does play the personal side of it, she gets crucified by so many in the media sphere and from the rank and file of both parties and independents.
It's a truly sucky position for her to be in. And for those that want to know more about what she does stand for as well since they get taken to the woodshed for all sorts of reasons.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)doesn't find himself in that position.
He has always held tight and acted upon the idea that as a public servant, you serve the public to the best of your ability and to the benefit of the oppressed majority.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But when it gets down to it, you do the right thing and stand up for what you believe in. If you can't, you shouldn't be in office.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)She represents the upper classes very well. She has nothing but hostility toward the other 99%.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Your perspective changes the higher you climb, everyone else not on your level look like ants scurrying around down below.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I also question whether her stances on some of the issues have changed since she ran in 2008. If she does run, I'm afraid we may be stuck with her...literally.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Take the Keystone pipeline, for example: Oil will move, one way or another. On one hand, we have trains of rail car tankers moving through our major cities, all loaded with crude. Or, that oil can move through a pipeline through rural lands. The oil will be transported, and there's really nothing a President can do to prevent it from being transported. So the pipeline isn't a binary issue. If you're against the pipeline, the oil will still move, but on dangerous rail lines, where disasters have already occurred.
The lack of a simple binary choice is present in almost every decision about national-level policy. There are very few binary choices out there at the national level, frankly. Women's rights is one of them, and Hillary is on the correct side on that one. Right now, she's not in a position where she has any role in any decisions, so all she can do is state her position on things, but that position cannot be a binary one on most issues. The world just doesn't work that way.
cali
(114,904 posts)is much more clear cut. I think her statements regarding how we should have more forcefully backed the Syrian rebels are indicative of her "tough" foreign policy stance. I think her support of corporate interests is so well documented as to be irrefutable whilst her support for those who are struggling is far less extant.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Yes or no
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Carter was in office. Most other countries now are way ahead of this country on working towards alternative sources of energy while this one lags way behind. It IS inevitable considering the Environmental disasters that have so damaged the environment.
And the Keystone Pipeline is more of a threat to the environment right now than any other method of transporting oil. There is simply NO defense for it, as most Liberals know and even moderate Repubs who actually do care about the Environment.
Any politician who supports this pipeline, or tries to make a case for it, belongs on the Republican ticket where they will be more comfortable.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I seem to remember some really sharp dude debating her and calling her out on flippy flops LOL
Who was that guy? 
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)It's about winning. Like so many other politicians she sold her soul in order to win. That's the prime objective, that's the only objective. Those who get hurt by her decisions (IWR, Patriot Act, TPP, XL Pipeline) are merely collateral damage. I'm not saying she is unique in this particular characteristic as virtually all politicians have to sell their soul to The Party but you asked what Hillary believes in. She believes in winning.
If we can ensure Hillary does not get the nomination that would send a powerful message to The Party. Whether they'll listen or not is another question but we'll have severely weakened the Third Way "Democrats" that have been holding The Party hostage since Bill Clinton. If that can be achieved, MAYBE we can take the Democratic Party back to what it used to be -- what it's supposed to be and that is a champion for the middle class, the poor and those with little or no voice.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Q [to Sen. Gravel]: A lot of Americans are concerned with outsourcing of US jobs. What’s your solution?
GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management & the shareholders.
CLINTON: Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it’s one that I’ve dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven’t taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn’t be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
cali
(114,904 posts)
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The H-1B visa program allows the hiring of 65,000 foreign workers each year to fill positions that cannot be filled by Americans. Before petitioning for a foreign worker, an employer is often required to obtain certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) that there are no U.S. workers available, willing, and qualified to fill the position at a wage that is equal to or greater than the prevailing wage generally paid for that occupation in the geographic area where the position is located. The purpose of this restriction is to demonstrate that the admission and hiring of foreign workers will not adversely affect the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/employment-based-immigration-united-states-fact-sheet
The H-1B visa program is pretty much the only way some people can manage to legally immigrate into the United States, considering the low, arbitrary immigration quotas we have. That is how my father was able to get into the US, and I will be eternally grateful for that program. To be against H-1B visas is to be anti-immigration. Contrary to the anti-immigrant propaganda out there about the H-1B visa program, the H-1B visa program has been shown to improve wages and increase jobs here in the US.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/h-1b-program%E2%80%99s-impact-wages-jobs-and-economy
Hillary Clinton explicitly states that the system must be made to work "for Americans first." Nowhere in that video does she say it is a good idea to ship jobs overseas or that she supports outsourcing.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"The H-1B visa program allows the hiring of 65,000 foreign workers each year to fill positions that cannot be filled by Americans. "
LIE, the truth is, many of our well trained, experienced IT professionals have to compete for people who can be paid peanuts and treated like dirt.
"To be against H-1B visas is to be anti-immigration. "
LIE, because many of us have no problem with the FACT that immigration is what keeps this economy healthy. Many of us Latinos are indeed angry that Obama had kicked this down the curb. But while we would have no problem with someone from India applying to immigrate, let's not forget what H1=b visas do, allow an employer to pay someone peanuts and avoid hiring an American, which is also a step towards ensuring that the IT industry, famous for 60 hour weeks, doe NOT Unionize.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Typing "LIE" in all caps hardly refutes the facts and links I provide.
cuncator
(28 posts)Here are a few links for starters:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers
http://it-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/03/05/0317248/uc-davis-study-concludes-h-1b-workers-neither-best-nor-brightest
There are plenty of other examples; Google to your heart's content.
Also, as a tech worker I've seen the effects first hand.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As noted in that Mother Jones article:
But the rules already require that the hiring not adversly affect American workers.
Plus, we're only talking about the tech industry. My dad wasn't in that industry, and his salary was definitely the same as the Americans holding the position. Sounds like the tech firms simply are not following the law.
We should be enforcing the H-1B rules. Again, nothing in that video you posted shows Hillary Clinton saying otherwise.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to outsourcing of jobs.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)However, bottom line for me is that if she wins the Democratic primary, I will vote for her, since I don't see the Republicans running any one that I would vote for.
I will probably help every other Democratic Primary Contender before I help her out.
2008, that is what happened with me. I donated to everyone except HRC and Obama. They were my last choice.
I still voted for O twice in the end, and I am pretty certain that is where a bunch of people would go.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously.
Do you need a window into a President's soul?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If so, that is pretty funny. If not, I am not sure what you are asking.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Beyond being more liberal than a hypothetical median Congressperson, I don't see why it matters how liberal a President is.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's not as if a more liberal President is going to magically change what Congress passes. It's like the nonsense about Obama "not wanting single payer badly enough" or whatever, rather than the fact that there were never the votes for it to pass.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I've heard a lot of things but never this. Maybe look at the difference between LBJ or Carter and any Republican president to get your answer? I'd offer a more recent Democratic president but since LBJ we really haven't had a traditional Democrat in office, been 3rd way since them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)As long as the President is to the left of Congress, how does it matter how far to the left he is?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Once a President is to the left of Congress it doesn't matter if he's way to the left or only a little to the left: Congress is going to do what it does.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And while a sitting President does have a lot of say in that (e.g. a sitting Democratic President is I think nominally head of the DNC), there's so much inertia there that no two people are going to have very different outcomes. They might have tactical differences, e.g. Dean's strengthening of state parties, but it's not like Dean moved the party to the left (if anything, strengthening the state parties in conservative states did the opposite). As lame as this sounds, I really think it's just the D or R after a President's name that matters, because you're mostly getting the same mid-level political appointees who actually implement things.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I know it got made much more independent under W's administration. That said he obviously could simply as a practical measure demand his resignation, which Clapper would no doubt submit. I'd be disappointed if he did (Wyden knew that answer was classified and should have asked it in the sealed session the day before, though he made his point in the process).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Heaven help the politician that dares question their power. Bravo for Sen Wyden for trying to expose Constitutional violations and those with oversight shouldn't be orchestrated as to which questions they may ask. And you well know that "classification" is used to hide transgressions. Oversight is a farce and the NSA/CIA has become very powerful. Gen Clapper had options, but he blatantly lied to Congress and then tried to ease out of it via a friendly reporter. He was never held accountable for the lie and why? Because no one has the power to do anything to him. The NSA/CIA branch of government was built with an unlimited budget and no oversight during the Bush dictatorship and has not changed under Pres Obama. I hope they are on the side of goodness but most likely they are looking out for the 1% and not the 99%. You'll notice that Sen Wyden has been quiet and the whole mess seems to have been swept under the rug.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, no.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)our business. 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Like I said, as long as the President is more liberal than the median Congressperson, how does his being even farther left change anything?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)by moving to the right - there is not much room for any real progress
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If and when she decides to run for President I would expect that we will all find out what policies she would support, with many debates, speeches and so on.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Not like she's new on the scene and she's yet to be vetted. In fact, I bet there's some place one could use an electronic device to find documentation of her positions on a wide variety of issues and how they may or may not change depending on the audience.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... but they do care about all of the money issues that they pay her to take positions to reward the 1% and screw the rest of us, just like so many other Turd Way (or former Koch supported DLC) Democrats(?)!
Follow the money... Corporate media emphasize only discussing social issues for a reason! They don't want to discuss things like bankster accountability, etc. that the people are on the opposite side of the one party (pseudo two party) state has been paid to support.
Every campaign event in 2014 and 2016, the people attending, whenever possible need to push ONLY the money issues with questions they ask that the corporate beholden candidates don't want to talk about. They will use the media to discuss their stances on the social issues without our prompting them. If we ONLY ask questions on the "money issues", even the media won't be able to save them from scrutiny, and have them more vulnerable to more populist candidates in both parties! Ultimately we need to take corporate personhood down, which even the Citizen's United bill that got blocked by Republicans wasn't strongly worded enough to do.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)You so SMART!
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)cashing in on the Clinton brand.
OilBurnerBob
(14 posts)Whatever she needs to say whenever she needs to say it... she doesn't give a damn about anyone else.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Campaign as a traditional environmentalist, middle class supporting Democrat, then sit back and strategize how you'll reward your "real constituents" with all of the corporate insiders you'll appoint to your administration.
librechik
(30,674 posts)and to soothe us into going along with it. Whatever Hillary may have wanted as she came to her own political awareness and beliefs is long gone.
This is not our grandfather's Democracy.
Omaha Steve
(99,582 posts)I don't think she will get the free pass to the nomination she is expecting.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)The murmurs are getting louder, people who should worry are starting to pay attention.
The coronation will not go as advertised, just as it didn't go over last time around.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)H2O Man
(73,536 posts)classic neoconservative: liberal on social policy, big on defense, and more than willing to engage the military in warfare in the Middle East.
cali
(114,904 posts)and that impacts everything from economics to war to social policy.
I think these qualities go hand-in-hand with her. Obviously, not all corporatists are neoconservatives, but I am unaware of any neoconservatives who are not corporatists.
I keep seeing Senator Joe Manchin on MSNBC. He seems to be fully aware of the dangers of the administration's move to war against Isis. I'm hoping that he will consider running in the 2016 primaries. From what I've seen, I could support him.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary, stands for getting things done, and fight for all the issues of the
democratic party; She stand with all the women's issues. She is
strong on jobs, on higher taxes on the rich, and she is for peace.
She is a deal maker, a fine politician on Americans behalf. I like
Obama and he is a strong world leader, but here at home he
has not been effective with his domestic agenda, he has not taken
the fight to the GOP. Hillary will bring in majority in house and Senate,
and we will finally be able to pass Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth's bills.
GO Hillary!!!!!!!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)When did you start posting at DU?
BRB, need Windex and paper towel.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wreq
(8 posts)Let's see, Hillary wanted us to vote for her in 2008 because she is Hillary. Now she wants us to vote for her because she is Hillary and she would be the first woman president. Where does she stand on the issues? Where ever the political winds are a blowin. My first choice for president in 2016 is Elizabeth Warren. But since Ms Warren is not running I am wholeheartedly supporting Bernie Sanders for POTUS 2016. After all we need at least one real Democrat to vote for. Goooooooo Bernie!!!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)She's got a whole meteorological lab to help her take a stand.
First, like many politicians, she raises her wet index finger to the wind. But while most politicians stop there, she has a kind of weathervane on the roof -- a one hundred dollar bill flapping in the wind. She checks that, too. For really important decisions about policy, there's a cashier's check flapping in the wind, but she keep that on top of Goldman Sachs' headquarters on Wall Street. Sometimes she gets a reading from another cashier's check catching the wind at Lockheed Martin HQ in Bethesda.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)"Fledgling efforts to develop a message are quietly taking place, said the people close to Mrs. Clinton. Without discussing her 2016 plans, she has talked to friends and donors in business about how to tackle income inequality without alienating businesses or castigating the wealthy.
That message would likely be less populist and more pro-growth, less about inversions and more about corporate tax reform, less about raising the minimum wage and more long-term job creation, said two people with firsthand knowledge of the discussions. (A person close to Mrs. Clinton said that she often seeks advice from people in various fields, and that those conversations have nothing to do with planning a campaign.)"
My comment
It would appear that her insider status give her an enormous advantage but it probably puts her priorities and the question of who she would be working for in serious doubt.
I read that Bernie Sanders likes a Eugene Debs quote:
"It's better to vote for want you want and lose, then it is to vote for what you don't want and win."
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"Without discussing her 2016 plans, she has talked to friends and donors in business about how to tackle income inequality without alienating businesses or castigating the wealthy. "
Heaven forfend she should tell the goddamn truth about who is destroying this country.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I suppose she couldn't be bothered talking to anyone that works for living.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)who might stick their nose outside the privilege bubble for a moment or two now and then, I am sure. 
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)My head hurts now.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)continue to be a mystery with no known or apparent cause. More at 11. 
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Remember, she's just like us! If she were so "privileged" she and Bill wouldn't have been broke while in the WH. See? She knows what it's like to struggle in these modern times. And, by the way, you can also look at their miraculous economic recovery since then as a great and traditional American dream come true! Through hard work, determination and a Can Do attitude, they've bounced back! Fine examples for us all to emulate.
We'll be stuck with 4 years of this shit
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It's one of the reasons we're being prepped for "Hillary is the only one who can defeat the Big Bad Republicans. No, don't look at those unserious populists over there."
Hillary's best chance of being elected was back in 2008, and she blew it. Income inequality and the collapse of the middle class are huge issues now, much more so than back in '08.
She can't credibly adopt a populist message, given her history. She can't openly diss it, either, although her campaign will have proxies trying to do that for her. The best she can hope for is to pretend to address the concerns of ordinary people without alienating corporate interests. That sort of mealy-mouthed "support" isn't going to hack it, especially if there are candidates out there who mean the populist rhetoric they spout.
Basically, she's in a position well-known to Republicans: unable to change policy, and therefore forced to "explain it better".
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)She does not seem to have an opinion of her own, unless it's about money and grubbing more of it - yay for that!
It's pathetically sad that a grown and supposed intelligent woman has to ask others what her opinions should be! That sounds psycho something to me. It sounds like a hollow, calculating machine.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)a democrat that will win
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Who ever wins the Democratic nomination will win the Presidency due to the fact that candidates from the other party are all bat shit crazy.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)want her to stand for. Then she puts a mildly "Democratic sounding" gloss on it.
She has shown an almost Nixon-like slipperiness in recent months. Anyone who spends her time buddying up to Goldman Sachs and a monstrous war criminal like Kissinger is not to be trusted one inch.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)seems appropriate here.
sP
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)DFW
(54,349 posts)If she doesn't announce her candidacy, then I'm not going to bother to guess what she's for or against. Nor will I support any committee or PAC purporting to support her. "Ready for Hillary" is BS unless they know (and say) what they're ready for.
I'm "ready" for Howard Dean, too. But I know he's not running. I don't even know that Hillary is.
I DO know that Mark Begich, Jean Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Michelle Nunn, Alison Grimes, Bruce Braley, Gary Peters and Kay Hagan ARE running, and the election in which they are running takes place in about six weeks. That's the election I'm focusing on for now. The battle for the White House can wait for six weeks, especially since its outcome will be influenced by what happens in the governors' races in Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Texas very shortly.
What Hillary does and/or says (which I suspect will be close to nothing) in the next six weeks is a gnat compared to the task of booting out Corbett in PA, Walker in Wisconsin, Scott in Florida, Snyder in Michigan, and getting in Carter in GA and Wendy back home in TX (I know, a pipe dream so far, but we're not giving up on her, since Abbott is SO good at making an ass of himself).
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)She's the "right hand" of the primary architect.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)intend to do if you are our candidate.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)HRC, and saying whatever it takes to make sure that HRC stays "inevitable" and eventually winds up in the White House. She is a shill, a huckster, a professional pol that shifts with the wind, and tap dances with the worst.
I wouldn't vote for her in a million years.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)she reminds me more of Tricky Dick Nixon every day. She has a ways to go but she's unquestionably driving down the Nixon road. She will literally say anything to get into the Oval Office. But she's still owned by Wall $treet and the MIC.
FlatStanley
(327 posts) winter is coming
(11,785 posts)was perfect or the thing characterized as "good" was anything other than lousy. People using that line in earnest might as well hold up a neon sign saying, "I know this is shit, but let's pretend it isn't."
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they've known for 14 years that their blastfax talking points are false--as false as their tactic of denying then defending everything from wars to Catfood Commissions
why do we listen to them if they've never once been right?
FlatStanley
(327 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If you don't like Hillary stay away from her, and support your candidate,
Democrats need stay together and play nice, We do not have the money
to waste on attacking each other. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will
support Hillary if she runs for President. Hillary has been in public for decades
she is known to all, if you don't know her read her book, google her speeches,
if you don't know where she stands, then you don't want to know you just want
to bash a democratic you don't agree with.
cali
(114,904 posts)criticize them.
I do know her. and I know I oppose her vigorously. don't like it? don't read my threads.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... given that she's the "presumptuous" candidate by so many that have voice in the corporate media these days.
I think you need to add a qualifier that they would support her over any Republican and leave it at that, as that is the way that most of us would feel at this time. But support her in the primaries? I don't think we can conclude whether Warren would "get behind her", and Sanders sounds too much like he's going to run in them to bring in another voice besides hers for voters to hear. It's one thing to support someone "running for president" and another to support them as their *choice* for president, especially in the primaries. To my knowledge, Warren has only indicated that she supports Hillary "running" for president, but I don't think it is clear yet who her CHOICE of candidate would be amongst who might (and who WILL run later) in the primaries. Too early to make conclusions yet, even if the corporate folks want us to decide now to hedge their bets in both parties of someone getting elected that will do their bidding.
We need someone that will make FDR-style changes in this country NOW, not two terms from now. Climate change, our economy, amongst other things won't wait that long. Many had hoped the more nebulous candidate Obama would bring that "change" (not well defined) that would do those things and have been disappointed in the actions he's taken (or not taken) since being elected. We don't want any more "engineered" choices from the corporate sector. Corporations have WAY too much power now, and we need a candidate that will work hard to keep them from "running the show" in Washington like they have been too much the last few decades.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)You might want to fix that before your next cut/paste job.
navarth
(5,927 posts)
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)What I do know is that her SCOTUS nominations (she'll probably get 2) will be Left of any made by Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or anyone of the clown car TPGOP'ers. Until Dem's get 5-4 or better on SCOTUS, nothing else matters.
Paladin
(28,252 posts)With the SCOTUS in the balance, I'm not about to back anybody but the Democratic presidential candidate with the best chance of emerging victorious.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There's nothing that Hillary has on that front that no other potential Dem nominee has. That's a general argument, not a primary one.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts).. or other potential candidates for that matter. One issue that she's better on with us, the party base. And preferably one issue that takes on the corporate PTB control that exists to our detriment in Washington now. I don't want to hear she "has the numbers", etc. That is not a stance on an issue that we can get behind. I want to know what she will DO for us that will be better than other Democratic candidates, not that she has some sort of inherent "royalty" that has her deserve the presidency over others. We aren't a party that worships royalty, nor should we be.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As a Dem president, she will nominate progressive Supreme Court justices, protecting reproductive choice for women, to name one thing.
Warren and Sanders are great, but they can't get elected President.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... I already noted that this is the common argument that "she has a better chance to get elected"... Now was that also a valid statement when some probably used that against Obama back in 2008 too?
I want to know WHAT MAKES HER BETTER as a person on issues that work for me. I don't think we KNOW who has a better chance of getting elected in 2016 any more than we "did" in 2008. I suspect with what the right wing of the Republican nominating a loser for their party, that it won't be too hard for whoever gets nominated by the Democrats to win in 2016, not "just Clinton"... So we might as well pick the person that best works for us, not just someone "who will win". Because often times using "what wins" as a sole criteria isn't going to provide us with the leadership necessarily what we want or significantly better than those that they beat.
I'm still waiting for someone to name one issue that she'd do better than either Warren or Sanders...
I think both Warren or Sanders would probably nominate MORE progressive justices to the Supreme Court and ones that are more likely to strike down the Citizen's United or notions that there is such a thing as "corporate personhood" in the constitution, with less corporate ties than Clinton would.
I don't see how Clinton would necessarily be BETTER in protecting reproductive choice for women than Warren or Sanders. Corporate America simply doesn't care about that issue other than having it to distract us from the other issues that they don't want us to demand action on from our reps that affect them more. I think they all would do well on that issue, but the hole in my book is fighting the corporate control of our government, which I just don't see evidence that Clinton will do, and I see both Sanders and Warren far more ready to take on that responsibility, which in my book are probably THE key root issues that need to be looked at in this coming election if we want to continue having a functioning democracy in the years to come.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Is that a reason to vote for him? Just to get him in to office? HUH???? So many here have their priorities mixed up and THAT is why our economy and country is so messed up, because too many are confusing politics with a football game! Get back to us when you have REASONS why people you support should be running our country, not just saying we should only look at the mechanics of getting them in power!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)If we have a weak Dem candidate, which Warren and Bernie would be (as much as I love them) we would end up with a Republican President. One who will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, obliterating Roe v. Wade. Women will die.
I am not "confused." Enough with the insults.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I would contend that the notion that populist candidates can't win is a constructed one that they use to continue to push down changes, etc. that will hurt them. So someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders "can't win".
Of course a lot depends on how populists can get their messages out, since the media is largely controlled by corporate interests. But I would contend that given the right message, there are many independents and even Republicans that ultimately would hear the messages of how we're going to correct the problems of a shrinking middle class that affects right wing and left wing and those in the middle all alike the way money is being redistributed from us by the rich that are allowed to corrupt the process now.
I'm not the only one that feels this way...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/afraid-stoke-populist-ire-obama-abandons-inequality-rhetoric/193560/
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)First you say I'm playing games. Now you say I'm too stupid to see through the corporate media propaganda.
And yet you offer no actual facts to refute what I and the polls, and Warren and Sanders themselves say about how unlikely it is they will ever get elected President. They can't even win a Dem primary. Warren has repeatedly said she is not even running. And I think Sanders is too responsible to pull a Nader and run as an Independent.
While you're telling the future, can you post the winning lottery numbers?
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I think the big support for Bernie right now is this issue of not knowing what people really think. With Sanders, you get what he thinks! And Hillary will be better than any t-folk candidate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)She believes she should be President and will say anything to make that happen.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Beyond that, I'm not so sure.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)supporter of her before. Best I can say is that 2016 is AFTER the 2014 elections! Depending on how bad or good the results are, people will either mobilize or GET A CLUE! Or do nothing at all! I'm afraid that I'm VERY AFRAID!
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE. Not sure the "change" is in the hands of Hillary at the helm. Of course as one posted here, Sanders & Warren are supporting her, but what else can be done? The gap in the polls between her and anyone else right now doesn't give much chance to any other Democrat. Sanders was once a Socialist, turned Independent and too many Democrats these days are either right leaning or DLC. That would NOT be me.
Unfortunately, my outlook and beliefs aren't faring well these days!
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)An unabashed socialist, too. Ask him. He'll tell ya.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I would probably fall into that same political description. Just think about the word alone, Socialism. I find no problem with it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I have to believe in a candidate. I do not believe in Hillary. At least I believed in BO.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Other than that, she's like a genetically-cloned politician: expert at the smile, point and wave; master of the sound-bite; past-master at managing perception.
Deeply held convictions just get in the way of her kind of politics.
moonbeam23
(312 posts)She believes in whatever will advance her interests at the moment and says whatever you think you want to hear...i'd like to revoke her Scorpio card because she is so wishy washy...we need a TRUE scorpio in the WH, someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who could establish a national park system despite all the whining of his opponents...
As for HC, as the saying goes "Watch what i do and you'll know what i believe"...she is NOT with us!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)he'll tell you what she stands for.
Adam051188
(711 posts)not a particularly inspiring group of politicians, the late 20th century american realists that is.
we need some dreamers and idealists very very badly. i'm talking about people who want to fundamentally change the way our government works.
elleng
(130,865 posts)I.only.know.how.people.behave.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)but she used her office to advocate for unsavory industries
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)the damage is done.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Lucky for her, I like winning too.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)It is very possible to win and lose at the same time. If you wind up having to give up everything you cared about to win, you still lose.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)is tell someone they are winning, even if have a ring in their nose as they are being led to being ground into Bacon in the slaughterhouse ("at least it's not Dog food, see , you are winning!"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm not really that into bacon. I know it's all trendy right now and shit.
No, obtuse porcine metaphors aren't really my bag. I barely have time to deal with first-level reality. And as such, first level reality is, no matter what you or I have to say about it, Hillary may very well be the Democratic Nominee for president in 2016. (Of course, a vigorous primary process is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged, particularly as that is the time to hopefully get the best candidate who gels ideologically with what one wants) ... should that eventuality come about, from where I sit, she has several considerable potential negatives (many of which could be mitigated by the candidate herself, should she so choose) however, one POSITIVE that she's got in her corner is her near-total immerision in the political zeitgeist for the past 20-30 years, which among other things gives her a considerable advantage at the game.
And, it is a game, like it or not.
So, there's that.
Bottom line, though, I haven't committed to support of any primary candidate at this early date, although I know the world waits with bated breath for any hint of my potential endorsement.
marble falls
(57,077 posts)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Fracking is the way to get that natural gas. It is not what "Clinton wants." It's what the policy wonks have put into the energy roadmap in the future. The President doesn't just change the trajectory magically. It takes years of studies and implementation goals and committees to change the trajectory. The only way to change it quickly is with a JFK style "Must Put a Man on the Moon" speech and the backing of Congress.
Keystone is necessary as part of that energy roadmap, for North American energy independence (and probably Central America tied to it longer term since Mexico is one of the only two countries who has committed to real CO2 reduction). Again, not changing.
TPP is geopolitical crap to box in China and Russia. It's not about jobs, it's not about trade. Clinton can actually make this point if she is asked about TPP but won't. If she did make the point, and it's a clear and obvious point, she'd win the debates hands down. Even against Sanders. The American people would be impressed by "It's not called Trans Pacific Trade, it's called Trans Pacific Partnership, everyone wins." Big smile. Sanders or whoever wins the point if Clinton waffles.
Clinton is for the furtherance of US culture, US society, US economic dominance. She has literally spent her entire adult life on civic duty. She's just going to do what the US administrators and the people working in those administrations have decided to do already. She won't rock the boat, she won't change the trajectory.
I remember when Obama came in and "changed the direction of NASA." After Bush came in and "changed the direction of NASA." It took 6 years for Bush to do it. Obama took 2 more years. Although for Obama it was a lot easier because of the collapse of the economy, he just gutted Bush's program. But, the contracts were still in place for some of Bush's program, so we wound up literally building a rocket launch pad that will never be used for the cost of billions.
She has talked about inequality, student loans, stuff like that, and it'll all be in the campaign if she decides to run. Her key talking point will always be to segue that into the American people being so hard on themselves and that as the reason the administrators and policy wonks have created the trajectory that they have, which she can't magically change without Congress backing her.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Actually, Obama's moves with NASA made sense, despite causing a lot of short-term wailing. Given the reality that we're not likely to give NASA a fraction of the $ they actually deserve, Obama pivoting away from Bush's destination-focused program ("Back to the moon!...uh, because" and particularly that totally useless top-heavy lawn dart known as the Ares I, letting private enterprise take care of LEO while NASA focuses on deep space exploration and finally getting around to a heavy lift rocket comprable (and eventually surpassing) the Saturn V--- focusing on capabilities instead of destinations which will build the groundwork for being able to explore the solar system... was actually a really good, smart call.
Obama did good work with an admittedly shoestring amount of money. He did it by listening to the experts, and as such we are on track to having human orbital capability through SpaceX very soon, and a working heavy lift rocket not long after.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I was using it as an example because of how difficult it is to change things. SLS actually presents an interesting example, because as it's sometimes called in the private space community, the "Senate Launch System" was in fact mandated by Congress. NASA had to build it because Congress told it to.
Now looking at the history of SLS and that it is really an outgrowth from the Constellation program, there's nothing that has changed there. The policy wonks, the administrators, and the contractors all got to keep the meat of the program. Even Orion was kept.
The only rocket scrapped was Ares I, and that's the launchpad that had to be completed, even after it was cancelled. They spent $9 billion already on Constellation components (R&D), so SLS had to be kept alive. It was the only logical thing to do.
This is why the "Hope and Change" thing was a total canard. It was not possible for someone to come into DC and change how things work magically.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Augustine commission recommendations.
I mean, it seems a fair no-brainer to me that we're way overdue for a heavy lift rocket. The Ares V was far and away the best part of the whole consetllation package. And it makes sense to have a crew capsule that can come back into the atmosphere at speeds above those required for returning from LEO, i.e. the Orion capsule.
The stuff that was retained from Constellation all made sense, to me.
I agree it's difficult to change things. I mean, we spend 60 Billion on the DEA, mostly to keep otherwise law-abiding Americans from smoking pot. Add to that the costs of filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders. To my mind, a lot of that money would be better used somewhere like NASA.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I spent a lot of time on Space Politics (it's a blog) trying to say that SLS should've been scrapped completely and NASA should go the Saturn V route. One of the biggest concerns from the MIC when the Shuttle got scrapped was that the Shuttle SRBs were actually subsidizing the military's ballistic missile program (that was so fucked up when I learned that; something you just don't think about).
Put the J-2X into hard development and make another Saturn V, call it Saturn VI or something. In the short term that'd be harder because you're looking at basically going back to the drawing board and building a whole new rocket. And government is highly resistant against such risk taking. It's actually a feature of bureaucracy, because if you're constantly changing things up, the system becomes unstable and nothing gets done.
The DEA and even more so the MIC are hard to get rid of for those reasons. I've noted this recently but we do like to talk about the US's encroachment on other countries by building bases there. What we forget to recognize in that debate is that the US has a lot of military bases at home, too, and each one fuels a local economy and each local economy is represented by someone who has to recognize that. This is a very tough thing to sell to the representatives. But the population can change it, just not quickly. Hickenlooper got elected in 2010, a bad year for Democrats, because he pushed back against an expansion of the army bases in Colorado.
I don't see Clinton rocking the boat but I do see stuff happening that we may not like. Social Security is going to have to be fixed, raising the cap is the most logical route, but it can't happen without a united (or fully controlled) congress. I think the most likely scenario is Social Security gets cut (age raise, CCPI) in exchange for addressing the student loan problem which is going to seriously affect the economy in the coming years. We'll probably also get the corporate tax rate lowered in exchange for some loopholes being closed. These things are just things that have to be addressed for the future, it doesn't matter who gets elected. The options are pretty damn slim unless you have a super majority and can get things done.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)don't see a lot of that happening, given political reality.
I did read at some point that they're talking about resurrecting the F-1 engine for the "upgraded" side boosters; this is what I was able to find on it:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/
I hear you about the whole SRB thing. I mean it makes sense why they developed, and would want them for, for instance, missile silos- no need to deal with the process of liquid fueling (in the case of something like a Titan II missile using highly toxic hypergolic fuels) or keeping LOX and liquid hydrogen super cold. I guess a SRB can just sit in the ground for an extended period and be ready to fire.
But it doesn't make a ton of sense, to me, as part of a manned rocket launch. In addition to being not terribly environmentally responsible.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"What's good for General Bullmoose is what's good for the USA! And by Dow Jones
and all their little averages, don't you forget it!"
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
No idea about these kind of question it may be depend upon the situation.
MH1
(17,600 posts)If there is another credible candidate in the primary who matches my other values more accurately, I will certainly support and vote for them in the primary. But I am not going to give anti-Hillary fodder to the republicans while I do it, not while she has a good chance of being our nominee.
Who's a credible candidate? Well, for a marker I'll assert that Kucinich was never a credible GE candidate, therefore I would never have voted for him. I think that Elizabeth Warren could potentially be very credible - but more so in the future, and I think she is more likely to run in the future than in 2016. While I personally would dearly love a President Bernie Sanders, I'm not sure he could be successful nationwide. Vermont is a very different place than ... pretty much any other state, and he would have to win places like FL and PA as well as the solid-blues.
I will be disappointed if no better candidate than Hillary emerges, but JUST by being solidly pro-choice she is light-years better than anyone the republicans will run. In other areas she might prevent progress we could've made with a President Warren* or Sanders, or even set us back a few years. But when you compare this to republican policies that would set us back decades and in some cases centuries, she would certainly be the moral choice from a utilitarian approach. And I don't know any other approach that makes sense in choosing a President. (utilitarian = most good/least harm for the most people)
* the best chance we have for a President Warren - which I see as a distinct and very hopeful possibility - is for her to be our NEXT candidate. She will still be young enough. I think she will not run this time but will support the nominee.
If we want better candidates than Hillary, we need to work on building a better bench of credible candidates. Right now, Warren is the bench. Who else do we have, if something takes her out? (I'm thinking Martin O'Malley, MD governor, but haven't heard much about him lately ... did I miss something?)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Those are positive positions to hold. But do they challenge the assumption of an ever increasing economic gap? Do they challenge they ideology of an unsustainable global military empire?
TBF
(32,047 posts)neither of them is running in 2020 - that's Reagan territory and it's not happening.
But I agree with your assessment re women's rights. If I'm choosing between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton there is no doubt in my mind who will better protect women.
TBF
(32,047 posts)She has always appealed to me as being the brains behind Bill (true story - I know someone who went to law school w/them. She attended class while he was out on the campaign trail ...). Sadly I don't think she shares my world view of economic inequality since she appears to be so into capitalism. Then again she will protect women's rights and that is a huge issue for me (and keeps me from going off the deep end and voting for a libertarian - because frankly I probably would given some of the things both parties have been up to). So, that is my assessment. I'd rather have Bernie or Elizabeth. Hillary is republican lite though so she may appeal to more voters. I hope I'm wrong. I hope there are serious primary challengers.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... play a game of saying what they think you want to hear and doing as they or their corporate masters please.
It's getting tiresome and it is one of the reasons voter turnout sucks, people at some point realize nothing is going to be done, it is all talk.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)she believes that in order to get elected you have to be careful about expressing positions that opponents will use in advertisements against you. Smart!!!
Obama did the same thing when running, and he still is evasive about the pipeline, immigration, Wall Street, and international policy.
If Hillary runs, she will need women, minorities, independents, and some cross-over repubs to vote for her. She knows that and so she won't express positions that would directly turn off those groups.
Meanwhile, you can see her speeches over the years (often on women's rights and health care.) Her SoS job was to carry out Obama's policy, not to create her own policy.
If you get a pure progressive to run, it would make DUers' hearts go pitty-pat, but you also will see a Bush or Perry or Rand Paul in the White House. No absolutely liberal candidate is going to win the swing voters.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Seriously now, if the Dominionists and Neocons hadn't infiltrated and dominated the Republican Party, Hillary would be across the aisle; she's an Eisenhower Republican.
As such, she's infinitely better for America than the Corporate/Fascist insanity rife within the New Republicans, but she's not really a Democrat, much less a Liberal/Progressive. If she wins the nomination, she'll get my vote, but it will be in despair and solely to ameliorate the downward drift that threatens us all.
Still, I really think that the Party needs to run a believable Democrat candidate. I can't say unequivocally that Sanders or Warren are proper candidates (although I think they may well be) because in all honesty I haven't made myself sufficiently aware of their records. That flaw is mine, not theirs.
We need commitment to countering the ecological nightmare that faces future generations.
We need commitment to leveling economic inequities.
We need better, more affordable health-care that isn't dictated by pharmacological companies that amount to drug-pushers.
We need regulations and oversight over business and industry. Frankly, Big Business is profit-motivated and can't be trusted to be "creators".
We need rational and humanitarian efforts to resolve problems in the ME, not jingoists whose only solution is perpetual war and the indiscriminate bombing of innocents.
We need realistic and equitable gun control; not "grabbers", but also not a carte blanche ignore-the-violence-as-long-as-there-are-profits proliferators.
We need compassionate and realistic drug laws, not the for-profit Drug Wars that enslave millions of hapless recreational users to the privatized prisons.
We need more, not less.
Does such a candidate, such a Leader, even exist? Can a real Democrat get elected?
Frankly, I don't know. I do know we don't need Hillary, whose only claims to Progressive Ideals are some curbs on the Health Industry, luke-warm support of Choice, and the fact that she's biologically a female.
I'd welcome Warren or Sanders as candidates because, from my limited knowledge, they are much closer to the Liberal Ideal, much closer to Balance, than Ms. Clinton.
Quite honestly, I'm probably more in line with the Social Democrat parties of Germany and other European countries than either American party. I'm realist enough to understand, though, that such desirable governance isn't immediately achievable in our political climate.
We need to reach for it, work for it, none-the-less. We need to demand more from our Party than "Ike" politics.
Our two-party system is supposed to be about balance; the republicans are supposed to be about true conservative values (not about establishing dynastic-politics and an untitled aristocracy) and the Democrats should pursue equality, care for our weakest citizens, and opportunity for all.
We've lost our way and desperately need to return to our core values as Americans.
ecstatic
(32,685 posts)She's been a liberal all her life, unlike many DU heros...but her campaigning style is very off putting--almost Romney like. I can't say it enough--just be yourself and let the chips fall where they may. Authenticity is so important!
Also, I think she's been wrongly advised that a woman has to be hawkish to become president. That's absolutely not true for me, but maybe it is for mainstream centrist men?
still_one
(92,136 posts)and if they don't like her, they will close their eyes to everything else. Same of course can be said of the pro-Hillary supporters, but I believe to a lesser extent
still_one
(92,136 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)makes it easy to compare candidates.
On the corporate and big banks issues, if you are young, college students and concerned about any candidate being connected with these sectors, remember you needed loans to get your education, these sectors will be needed in your future. You might have disdain for those who have amassed a fortune but if you are lucky you just may be able to amass a fortune one day. You may be able to get $200,000 for your speech one day.
still_one
(92,136 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Gonna have us a big ol' bloody batch of money making.
