HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Regarding Hillary Clinton

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:49 PM

Regarding Hillary Clinton

There are quite a few OP/threads on DU:GD concerning Hillary Clinton in recent days. The vast majority of them -- in my opinion -- have an obnoxious-to-toxic flavor (in whole or in large part). So I thought that I’d try posting something that provides forum members with an opportunity to discuss Ms. Clinton’s expected campaign for the presidency in 2016 in a meaningful way.

I live in rural, upstate New York. Thus, if Ms. Clinton runs, my vote will carry no weight in either a primary of general election contest. For sake of this discussion, I should add: [a] I long preferred Hillary to Bill Clinton; [2] I voted for her twice, in NYS elections for the US Senate; [3] I met her twice in that period; and [4] I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary. More, I have not decided who I would vote for, if she does enter the 2016 primaries. I haven’t gotten that far yet.

I believe that there are three major areas to consider with Ms. Clinton or any other candidate for office: [1] social policy; [2] economic policy; and [3] foreign policy. In my opinion, Hillary’s strength in terms of appealing to grass roots Democrats is in social policy. Frequently, the media labels this “women and children’s issues.” However, it goes beyond that. Social policy includes things that impact families -- including men -- such as health care.

At the same time, there are areas of social policy where the grass roots should disagree with Ms. Clinton. This includes areas where economic policy overlaps with social policy: she is an advocate for the “fracking” industry, which has very negative effects upon the environment (and the environment impacts many family’s health).

I’ll end this with a brief story. In late 1999, the movie “The Hurricane” was released. The film is about the legal struggle of my late friend, Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter. Although I never saw it mentioned in the media, I remember that President Clinton and Hillary had Rubin visit them at the White House for a private screening of the film. Not a huge thing, I know, but it made an impression on me.

112 replies, 7324 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 112 replies Author Time Post
Reply Regarding Hillary Clinton (Original post)
H2O Man Mar 2015 OP
Autumn Mar 2015 #1
H2O Man Mar 2015 #19
Autumn Mar 2015 #23
H2O Man Mar 2015 #25
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #30
Autumn Mar 2015 #36
DonCoquixote Mar 2015 #51
Autumn Mar 2015 #52
leveymg Mar 2015 #2
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #8
leveymg Mar 2015 #10
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #13
roguevalley Mar 2015 #14
H2O Man Mar 2015 #22
roguevalley Mar 2015 #57
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #95
roguevalley Mar 2015 #97
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #98
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #103
H2O Man Mar 2015 #21
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #48
H2O Man Mar 2015 #20
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #69
H2O Man Mar 2015 #90
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #102
mmonk Mar 2015 #3
H2O Man Mar 2015 #24
mmonk Mar 2015 #49
Agony Mar 2015 #53
wordpix Mar 2015 #83
H2O Man Mar 2015 #85
pkdu Mar 2015 #4
H2O Man Mar 2015 #27
TBF Mar 2015 #5
H2O Man Mar 2015 #28
libdem4life Mar 2015 #37
Spazito Mar 2015 #6
H2O Man Mar 2015 #32
bvar22 Mar 2015 #55
H2O Man Mar 2015 #60
bvar22 Mar 2015 #87
spanone Mar 2015 #7
H2O Man Mar 2015 #61
blogslut Mar 2015 #9
H2O Man Mar 2015 #62
byronius Mar 2015 #11
bravenak Mar 2015 #54
H2O Man Mar 2015 #63
Maedhros Mar 2015 #12
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #64
H2O Man Mar 2015 #66
H2O Man Mar 2015 #65
hunter Mar 2015 #15
H2O Man Mar 2015 #71
OKNancy Mar 2015 #16
H2O Man Mar 2015 #72
OKNancy Mar 2015 #73
H2O Man Mar 2015 #75
ColesCountyDem Mar 2015 #17
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #33
ColesCountyDem Mar 2015 #34
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #35
ColesCountyDem Mar 2015 #38
libdem4life Mar 2015 #39
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #42
H2O Man Mar 2015 #74
ColesCountyDem Mar 2015 #76
H2O Man Mar 2015 #80
Rex Mar 2015 #18
H2O Man Mar 2015 #78
Oubaas Mar 2015 #26
H2O Man Mar 2015 #79
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #29
H2O Man Mar 2015 #41
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #43
H2O Man Mar 2015 #46
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #47
H2O Man Mar 2015 #84
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #67
H2O Man Mar 2015 #81
B Calm Mar 2015 #31
libdem4life Mar 2015 #40
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #44
B Calm Mar 2015 #45
H2O Man Mar 2015 #88
herding cats Mar 2015 #50
H2O Man Mar 2015 #91
panader0 Mar 2015 #56
H2O Man Mar 2015 #92
Hekate Mar 2015 #58
H2O Man Mar 2015 #93
Beausoir Mar 2015 #59
Hekate Mar 2015 #96
Beausoir Mar 2015 #104
Beausoir Mar 2015 #112
McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #68
greatlaurel Mar 2015 #70
John Poet Mar 2015 #107
karynnj Mar 2015 #77
H2O Man Mar 2015 #94
MBS Mar 2015 #99
wordpix Mar 2015 #82
H2O Man Mar 2015 #86
Rex Mar 2015 #100
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #89
H2O Man Mar 2015 #108
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #101
H2O Man Mar 2015 #109
kydo Mar 2015 #105
H2O Man Mar 2015 #110
daredtowork Mar 2015 #106
H2O Man Mar 2015 #111

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:55 PM

1. I had a couple of conversations with her on health care. She made an impression on me.

She's a compassionate caring person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:24 PM

19. I've spoken with four

men in the last 24 hours (though not about Hillary Clinton or any other politician). All four are good Democrats. Three of the four, like myself, are retired; one is in his mid-20s. Each one of them, in the various discussions, made note of how medical bills are taking a frustrating percentage of their income.

Of the potential candidates, the argument can be made that Ms. Clinton would be the most likely and capable of getting "single payer" passed -- at least in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:30 PM

23. I know in my heart that had Hillary won in 2008, we would have had a strong public option

and would be on our way to single payer. That was her baby, her passion. Now with the ACA I'm not so sure. Her stand on Keystone, the TPP, fracking? I don't think I can overlook those things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:36 PM

25. I was speaking with another

friend earlier in the week, about a social-political activity she is involved in. She mentioned that "it would take a miracle." I told her two of my favorite quotes:

"Miracles do happen; they just take a dog-gone lotta work!" -- Rubin "Hurricane" Carter; rally in Washington, DC; July 4, 1976

"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles is unrealistic." -- Muhammad Ali

It might take a miracle to get the public option today. But it is a realistic goal, and one that the public should be working towards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:48 PM

30. But wait, how would she get it past the people that Obama clearly knew he couldnt get it past?

I dont question she would want to then and now, but I dont see it, not back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:59 PM

36. Hillary would have fought tooth and nail for it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:28 PM

51. do you think she would have allowed it

considerign she took advice from RD. Zeke Emmanuel just like Obama did. You know Zeke via his more famous brother, the one who wrote in his atuoboigraphy that he begged Obama not to attempt medical reform at all, and is also famous for calling eloftiustrs assholes and for being the soon to be former Mayor of Chicago. I still bet Hillary has a place for him in the cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:38 PM

52. No, I don't believe she would not have backed down on that.

That was her dream. I can't claim to know it as fact but from talking to her about it I firmly believe we would have had it. But about the soon to be former Mayor of Chicago, If he gets a spot on her team that will be very interesting, hell if he shows up 10 miles within one of her campaign stops that will be a big red flag to many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

2. You mentioned foreign policy - her biggest negative is her track record on war - disqualifying IMHO

Otherwise, I think I could bring myself to live with HRC and support her candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:48 PM

8. The Neocons love HRC's foreign policy.

 

"And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

The middle and lower classes will not survive continued wars and ever increasing defense spending. Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:21 PM

10. I would count her as a neocon, and as a key ally, even if she's not a PNAC signatory.

In fact, along with CIA Director Petraeus, she is more responsible than any other member of the Administration for the regime change policies that destabilized and spread Sunni militants across the Mideast and North Africa regions and beyond. She's not just an ideologue, as Secretary of State, she was the most powerful operative of the neocon movement.

She frankly scares the hell out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:44 PM

13. I also consider her a neocon. The neocons consider her a neocon. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:59 PM

14. I believe her judgment is open to discussion

This whole episode and the resulting repugasm that is coming is a fist to the face she gave herself. I feel her judgment is a first class topic for discussion. Given that she is trying to be hired to make them, her lack of judgment here makes it a real topic and real concern for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:28 PM

22. I agree.

It is an essential topic for conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:11 PM

57. cool. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:31 AM

95. Hillary Clinton showed terrible judgment on Iraq, or she was willfully complicit

Many HC supporters prefer to see her IWR vote as the product of flawed intel and Bush administration deceptions. Hillary admitted she made a mistake, so why can't her detractors let it go?

That might be a reasonable argument if it wasn't so obvious at the time that Bushco was engaged in a blatantly false marketing campaign to sell the war. I was here at DU, and there was a wealth of information to dispel much of the nonsense the neocons were spouting. If Hillary Clinton wasn't as well informed as we were, she is unfit for high office. But I think she's that stupid, and was on board with the neocon agenda.

Which is worse when it comes to critically important policy like Iraq -- incompetency, or complicity?

Both are disqualifiers in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #95)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:04 PM

97. it is pretty horrendous isn't it, Martin Eden?

I think that some have lived in the third way, triangulate, woo the other side no matter what 'style' of politics that we have had for thirty years they don't know there's another way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #97)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:47 PM

98. People see what they want to see

One thing I failed to see was I forgot to type the word "don't" In my sentence I ____ think she's that stupid.

It's easy to get caught up in political partisanship of the kind that pits one brand against another and focuses far too much on personalities. Hillary Clinton became a champion on "our side" when she and her husband were constantly under assault by the rightwing attack dogs during Bill's presidency. The actual qualifications of politicians and where they stand on policy that really affects the lives of citizens falls by the wayside. It's all about the horse race and scandal and whatever can boost ratings to sell more ads on TV. A candidate isn't "viable" until he or she is made into a celebrity by the mainstream (read: corporate) media.

As long as the majority of the electorate plays along with that game, everyone loses except the few who hold most of the wealth and power and the politicians who successfully play the game. In defense of Hillary, it's next to impossible to attain high office without playing along and giving the devil his due. But once a politician achieves celebrity status and high office, comes the real test of whose interests will be represented and/or how qualified the person is to lead.

The IWR vote was perhaps the biggest answer to that question in the last 20 years at least. The cost and the consequences of this war, still ongoing, are almost impossible to overstate. Strong Democratic leaders were desperately needed to stand up and speak truth to power and stop this war crime before it was perpetrated.

Hillary Clinton is complicit. So is John Kerry, Joe Biden, and every member of both parties (slightly less than half the Democrats in the House/Senate) who voted for it.

The fact that several prominent Democratic leaders failed the test in no way exculpates any of them. This is a sad testament to the state of our Party and the direction of our country -- but everything is relative and nobody notices the goalposts have been moved further to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:37 PM

103. Precisely right. Hillary's propensity to shoot herself in the foot knows no bounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:27 PM

21. If one uses the correct,

original meaning of neoconservative, Ms. Clinton is perhaps the best example of one in current times. It's interesting: she replaced Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was also a classic neoconservative.

Never-ending war is the shortest route to completing the journey from constitutional democracy, to modern-feudalism in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:15 PM

48. "Never-ending war is the shortest route to completing the journey from constitutional democracy, to

 

modern-feudalism in America." Abso-fracking-lutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:24 PM

20. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:13 PM

69. In a Dem Primary, I won't vote for any candidate who was for the IWR

It is an absolute disqualifier for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #69)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:28 AM

90. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:35 PM

102. Hillary's foreign policy stumbles and IWR vote are HUGE negatives, yes, but her Wall Street leanings are just as bad IMHO...

That alone makes Hillary unpalatable and a non-starter as a primary candidate. She can try to distance herself from these out-of-touch views, but it's not going to fool anyone.

I have no doubt that a more genuine candidate will emerge who represents the views of ordinary people on Main Street and can articulate a clear vision for a brighter, more peaceful future for the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

3. I'm not in her camp for economic based reasons (and fracking).

However, it doesn't mean I hate her or will take cheap shots during a primary or general election. If she becomes the candidate, I hope her team is balanced and voices concerns in this area (primarily financial deregulation and trade). The candidates I hate are Republican and Libertarian. Have a great day and LLAP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:31 PM

24. I've been thinking

about trying to set up a meeting, between Ms. Clinton, and Onondaga Clan Mother, Yoko Ono, and one of the women from PA who has had her property destroyed by fracking. What do you think about that idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:19 PM

49. Well you know me. Excellent idea.

There is nothing like presenting the truth to someone. It will also reveal any flaw in character depending on the response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:39 PM

53. great idea!

you might include the family from Houston, PA as well…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:34 PM

83. go for it!

Onondaga Clan Mother Yoko Ono? Is this an honorary post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:39 PM

85. Thanks!

No, the comma isn't to imply that title; it's to separate the two. Sorry for the confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pkdu (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:38 PM

27. Thank you.

President Clinton's attack upon the Great Writ was, in my opinion, one of the worst things that any American president has ever done. The irony of his action, and meeting Rubin, wasn't lost on either Rube or myself.

I appreciate the links!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:20 PM

5. Not my favorite but it's not like the GOP

would get my vote obviously.

I do have a story. I worked for someone who went to law school with her and Bill. She was a hard-working, very smart student. Bill was often out on the campaign trail. He was also smart - just never there. Apparently he did well enough showing up to take the exams (Hillary was in class taking copious notes). She's definitely intelligent.

She also strikes me as very hard-working and I know she'd be great for women. We were scolded on DU not to say that, but I think it's important to note because we are facing some very backwards candidates in the GOP. While I don't think she really understands what it is like to be poor, very few politicians do, and some are outwardly hostile to labor (like Scott Walker again for example). We could do worse for a candidate. We may also be able to do better, and my personal favorite potential candidate is Julian Castro. I am hoping he ends up as her VP because I believe he DOES understand what it is like for normal people (he grew up with a single mom, and grandma who was a first generation immigrant).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:42 PM

28. Very good!

Thank you!

I have two daughters. I remember, back in 2007-08, the younger one was annoyed that Hillary was running, because she was sure that she was meant to be the first female president! (Now that she's a senior in high school, I believe she would be more supportive of a Clinton campaign!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:59 PM

37. Yes, for Julian Castro. His history and political background is nigh perfect...he's just a bit young

 

but 8 years in the VP slot will satisfy eligibility concerns. He has to turn Right to get to the Left...incredible family credentials and both he and twin Joaquin...now HUD Secretary...are up and coming Hispanics and extremely important to Democratic demographics of the future. Hopefully someone will link or post the photo with him and Hillary. If Warren takes a photo with him, I'll plug it, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:24 PM

6. Well said...

As with any potential or declared candidate, there are pros and cons surrounding any of them and substantive discussion on those negatives and positives is important while those with an "obnoxious-to-toxic flavor" may generate a lot of heat but lack light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:52 PM

32. Thank you.

One of the things that the majority of the pro- and anti-Hillary posts have in common, is that they fail to consider the role that two significant groups can have, regardless of who is elected president in 2016.

The first is Congress: both the House and Senate are hugely important. A democratic Congress obviously does not insure good policy, but it has the potential. A republican Congress removes any chance of fairness.

The second is the public. Did President Obama fail in harnessing the public's energy, post-election? Absolutely. But we own a big part of the responsibility for that failure. When he took office, we had a unique opportunity to apply pressure on him and Congress. But far too many people sat back, mistakenly assuming that electing him was the answer, that we had done our part.

A more mature understanding of democracy is required, if any meaningful change is to take place. At least any positive change -- if we fail, the negative will build upon itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:19 PM

55. I disagree.

After the election, President Obama turned his back on LABOR and the Democratic Wing of the Party.
Not a single Democrat who voted AGAINST the IWR was appointed to a position in his cabinet, or a position of authority in his administration.

The advocates for Medicare for All were locked OUT of the discussion of Health Care Reform.
Then there was that "fu**ing Retards" remark from his CoS.

President Obama had absolutely no use for the Left Wing of the Party. He wouldn't take our calls,
CBC was reduced to writing letters to the White House.

We went from THIS:
[font color=white]......[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]


to THIS:

immediately after the inauguration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:28 AM

60. Well said.

I can't argue with that. But I still think the liberal-progressive wing of the Democratic Party, along with the Democratic Left (which did provide candidate Obama with a lot of support) should have immediately responded by putting pressure on Congress and the White House. For too long, the images being portrayed by the media were of aggressive tea party lunatics disrupting public meetings. It wasn't until the Occupy movement that we saw a powerful, non-violent response from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:29 PM

87. That was "Teabagger Summer" when all those insane ...

Town Hall Meetings were held.
The Democratic Party was strangely quiet during that Summer.

The Administration should have used its Army for Change that Summer.
With a little leadership, thousands of Public Option/Medicare for All advocates could have protested r swamped those meetings.
Instead, the army was left standing in the street...leaderless, milling around,
eventually realized that any "change" would have to come from them without any leadership from the Party, and morphed into Occupy.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:27 PM

7. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:28 AM

61. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:50 PM

9. I will likely support the Democratic candidate no matter who that will be.

When it comes to scrapping with congress, Hillary Clinton will be fierce. Of course, the GOP will be uniformly obstinate towards a Democratic president but they'll be doubly so with her.

Just the same, I would like to wait until actual persons enter the Democratic primary until I throw my support behind anyone. All this supposition is not for me.

The email thing was not a smart move on her part but I don't think it's a campaign killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:32 AM

62. Good points.

At this point, I'm far more interested in preparing for the local,county, and state elections that will be taking place in 2016, than the presidential race. Indeed, it's the preparation for these that provide the grass roots foundation for the national contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:38 PM

11. Truly, a lot of intense invective being spewed.

Me, I'm still considering and pondering. I definitely think there is a Catch-22 at work here -- Citizen's United has made it necessary for every Democratic candidate to develop a relationship with Big Money, thereby tarring their reputation permanently with the party purists.

She's apologized for her Iraq war vote, if I'm not mistaken. Me, I find that evidence of willingness to grow and learn, and I won't hold it against her. All the other stuff -- I have yet to really sift through it all. I appreciate your always-wise attempt to instill a little patience and unemotional process into the mix, although there seem to be many Absolutists with serious Hillary-hatred dominating the discussion here.

I generally trust her, just as a human being. I don't believe she's a nefarious slave to Big Money, as so many charge. I think she's living in the world of American politics, and I'm sure it's altered her; at heart, however, I still think she's quite the neo-hippie. Perhaps not as savvy or amazingly adept as Obama, but who in this entire world is? No one.

No one. We're going to miss him terribly when he's gone. Replacing him will be impossible.

Thanks for your balance in this matter, sir. You rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byronius (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:39 PM

54. +1 Awesome.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byronius (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:02 AM

63. Great points!

I agree with you about Citizen's United's impact. I think that it fits into a larger context that is important for people to consider.

Corporations, by their very nature, have certain dynamics that come into play. Author Gerry Mander described them in his outstanding book, "In the Absence of the Sacred." One of these is the need for growth. And the biggest difference in this need is determined by if a corporation is for profit, or not-for-profit. And I realize I'm speaking in very general terms here.

Our government is actually a form of a corporation. For many years, the federal government was closer to a non-profit, than a for profit corporation. It is perhaps worth noting that, for example, in the period leading up to the Civil War, there were numerous political parties. More, the US Senate had its Golden Age, where an impressive number of outstanding minds debated important issues. Now, I'm aware of the many injustices in American society in that era, and am not attempting to pretend that they didn't exist. Rather, I'm speaking in general terms about the ability to become a more perfect union.

In the post Civil War era, generally from 1870 to 1900, the federal government became a for profit corporation. That isn't so much how much the federal government made, as how it was then spent to enrich major stock-holders. Hence, Mark Twain's wonderfully accurate description of it as the Gilded Age. Politics became a fairly even contest between two parties, both corrupt at the top. Yet the grass roots would make progress on a number of social issues.

In the post-WW2 era, the federal government/corporation would invest in creating a large middle class in America. That tended to remain true, to various extents, until the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. Then, the federal government began to again be a for profit corporation, which was primarily focused upon rewarding its major stockholders.

Our federal government will continue to be a corporate state entity, no matter who wins the presidency in 2016.The only question is if it will be for the profit of the 1% exclusively, or a non-profit that invests in the entire nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:38 PM

12. The United States has been in a state of continual, undeclared "War" since 9/11/2001.

 

Civil rights have suffered greatly during this war, like they have in all previous wars. The nature of war nearly always results in the invocation of "extreme measures" to defeat the enemy. In the past the ending of the war has heralded the end of the extreme measures, so the civil rights setbacks have been temporary.

Not any more.

We now have a war that will never end, with an ever-increasing list of "extreme measures" that are necessary to defeat an ever-shifting and growing roster of "terrorists." These "extreme measures" are now standard operating procedure, and will stay in effect until the "war" is over - which doesn't appear to be anytime on the perceptible future.

Hillary as President is guaranteed to continue the state of "war," which means that we are guaranteed to suffer additional "extreme measures" to "keep us safe." She can take largely rhetorical stances on social issues, but if the Government continues to imprison and assassinate people based upon secret laws, secret courts and secret prisons, does it really move us forward?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:15 AM

64. One could argue, with some justification, that GW I never really ended.

It just switched to a lower-intensity air war & embargo after the troops were pulled out the first time. Kids were still dying as a result of our military actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:14 PM

66. Valid point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:14 PM

65. Very important points.

Thank you for this.

Those in Washington have kept the American public in a curious "high alert" state, including the wars, since 9/11. And it's not that our nation hasn't had military/intelligence operations going pretty constantly since WW2 ended -- most of the public was simply unaware of the extent, except in Korea and Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and then the first Gulf war. But the recent events are limited largely to a distinct socio-economic group (the families of soldiers), in terms of impacts that they feel. Our constitutional rights are being stolen quietly, "for our own safety." And that's not an area where Ms. Clinton has appeal to a large segment of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:00 PM

15. Mass media is fanning the flames, thus "the obnoxious-to-toxic flavor."

In the current political system I'll never be able to vote for a candidate who is the same sort of piss-on-Ronald-Reagan radical leftist, environmentalist, and humanist that I am. But I will vote for a progressive over a venal regressive politician every time.

The right is throwing shit at Hillary Clinton because she is a much stronger candidate than anyone they've got.

I think the the obnoxious-to-toxic flavors in threads here on DU are coming from people who watch too much television or listen to too much radio talk. I don't watch any television or listen to radio talk. The signal-to-noise ratio is simply unacceptable to me, and I hate in whenever these mass media generated shit storms disrupt DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:56 PM

71. The media definitely

plays a big role in many people's perceptions. No doubt about that. And lots of the stuff posted on DU is about as shallow as what is found in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:09 PM

16. You do realize that some of her "support" is because she is acting at the behest of the President

While she was Secretary of State, she had to go along with his policies.

---
She has never actually held an executive office where she makes policy on her own.
I do know her voting record as Senator is good. She voted and sponsored bills that were
very favorable to the middle class and the poor and not the 1%.
THere is more, but I know how people won't read long posts or posts with a lot of links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:57 PM

72. She had a lot

of support before Obama became President. Likely there is more now, in part because of her years in his administration, and partly because he can't run again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:02 PM

73. I wasn't clear I guess

Her support for his policies. Not outside support.
For example TPP. She did what she was asked to do by the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #73)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:10 PM

75. You were clear.

I understand what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:18 PM

17. While she's not my preferred candidate, she's not Satan's spawn, either.

I'm a democratic socialist, so you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who my preferred candidate is or might be. That said, I will gladly support Secretary Clinton, should she become our nominee.

Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:52 PM

33. Can I steal that last line please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:55 PM

34. Be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:57 PM

35. Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.

Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.
Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.
Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.


Careful with your generosity, I might wear it out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:59 PM

38. It bears repeating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:00 PM

39. can I be in the Amen Corner? Thank you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:03 PM

42. Let me say it this way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:09 PM

74. The candidates that

I've thought the highest of were (more recently) Rev Jesse Jackson, and (life time) Robert Kennedy. I think that both of them recognized the connections between social, economic, and foreign policy. And that our society needs radical changes in values, to attempt to heal the injustices the current system creates.

The other candidates, over the years, in both the primaries and general elections have at times offered the potential of fine-tuning the machine, but not making the types of changes required. Still, I've never looked at any republican, and felt that there was any real common ground. Nor have I systematically ruled out a potential of a third-party candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:14 PM

76. I like your list, and would add the late Sen. Paul Simon to it.

Being from the poorest part of Illinois, Paul Simon truly 'got it' on a visceral level, but had the misfortune to run in a year when there was 'no oxygen left in the room'. It was America's loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #76)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:25 PM

80. Good addition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:19 PM

18. Is she for free trade or fair trade?

 

There are a lot of legit questions. However trying to tie her campaign in with that infamous blue dress is total crap and anyone doing so on THIS site should be ridiculed out of the room.

She had her own ISP, let's debate the pros and cons of that. She voted for the IWR, let's debate the pros and cons of that. She has a strong social policy toward families (in certain areas), let's debate the pros and cons of that.

A LOT of legit things to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:25 PM

78. Right. I agree.

We should be discussing all of those things. I don't believe that "trolls" are preventing that, be the few here be "hidden" among the pro- or anti-Clinton forces.

I do recognize that there are a couple of pro-Clinton groups here who have absolutely made up there mind. These include a group who supported her in 2008, and some who support her now because, with President Obama nearing the end of his term, she is probably going to win any possible primary, and may have the best chance in the general election. Likewise, there are many who oppose her, because of some of her policies, or because they do not think she could win the general election.

There are also many DUers who either haven't made up their minds this early, or favor one person, but are willing to consider all options. It's not a coincidence that these folks are not the ones who are poisoning and tempting to derail meaningful discussions. That's not to imply that anyone who is pro- or anti-Hillary is among the intolerant forum members. But our intolerant friends tend to come from one or the other of those groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:36 PM

26. Regardless of anything...

...unless it's suddenly revealed that children-on-the-half-shell is her favorite dish, she's still going to be light years ahead of what the other major party spews forth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oubaas (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:31 PM

79. Agreed.

The other major party appears to be engaging in a contest to identify the most offensive person possible for the general election. It is a sad statement on our society that they are the "leaders" of a recognized major party, and than so many average Americans would vote for such unethical trash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:45 PM

29. You knew Carter? And you have met Hillary twice?

Dylan is how I know of Carter, initially.

What was he like as in bitterness or lack thereof?

And you met Hillary. I know they have public persona's but you can tell something about a person even in that environment, what is your gut on her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:03 PM

41. Rubin and I were

very close friends for over 40 years. I worked with his defense team. And assisted him in writing his second book, as well as a chapter he contributed to a book on forgiveness (authored by a professor from SUNY-Binghamton).

In the years after he won his case in federal court, and was released, Rubin was free from bitterness. He was, in private, a fairly quiet and gentle man. My children all loved him, too. I miss talking to him. He remained a night-bird, and so lots of his calls came around 3 am.

The first time I met Ms. Clinton was at a large public event (the day she announced that she was running for the Senate, at Pat Moynihan's farm. The second time was with a very small group of friends, and I had the opportunity to talk with her casually. I had always been impressed with her, but found that I was much more impressed by her that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:05 PM

43. Thank you, one more if I may.

How did the Dylan Rubin deal work?

Did Dylan ask him if he could write the song?

Assume he loved the song?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:10 PM

46. Sure.

Dylan actually only contributed the first line of the song; Jacques Levy wrote the rest. Dylan came up with the music, though.

One of our friends, Ron Lipton, had sent Dylan a copy of Rubin's first book ("The 16th Round", and Dylan liked it enough that he went to meet Carter at the prison. And the administration allowed Bob to stay and talk with Rubin for almost eight hours that day! That isn't usual, by any means.

Dylan left that day, determined to write a song to publicize the case. And, yes, Rubin loved it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:14 PM

47. Oh, guess if I had looked at the credits on the record I would know that, but I didnt, thanks

Very few artists can take something unknown and seemingly unimportant to the average person and do what Dylan & Levy did with the Hurricane story.

Speaking of this, I am finding this person's life interesting


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Weldon_Johnson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #47)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:38 PM

84. People still love that song.

Levy taught at Colgate, just up the road from me. I haven't seen or spoken to him in years, and have no idea if he is still there.

That was a hectic period in Carter's defense effort. As the (non-legal) defense committee grew, there were all of the strange and unnecessary tensions between various members that you could think of. Not everyone was on their best behavior -- it was eye-opening for me that "celebrities" turned out to be normal, imperfect people.

The most important and decent of Rubin's supporters was Muhammad Ali. And they had not been friends when they were both boxing in the 1960s. Rubin was tight with Sonny Liston; Ali called Sonny "the big ugly bear," and Rubin "the little ugly bear." Angelo Dundee always liked Rubin, though. He worked the corners of a half-dozen of Ali's sparring partners who fought Carter.

Sometimes, I think I should write a book on that case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:36 PM

67. So here it is.

My friend that recently passed away was a huge boxing fan. He loved this song.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:27 PM

81. Nice! Thanks!

I have a couple of bootleg versions of the song. I'll ask my son who understands technology if I (he) can post it here. (He should be here tomorrow.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:51 PM

31. Hell I'll vote for her (if only) because of the made up Benghazi bullshit!

 

I did enjoy watching republican reactions when they lost to a black man. Hillary win would be just as delightful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:02 PM

40. As the sheep would say...Baaaaaaaaaaaad. Indeed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:06 PM

44. Kind of the way some white folk reacted to OJ verdict

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:07 PM

45. LOL +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 05:18 PM

88. Very good!

The republican stunt on "investigating" Benghazi was originally a bad idea. That they continue with that nonsense indicates stupidity on their part, not to mention utter contempt for the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:22 PM

50. Things I'd like someone to ask her about include, but are not limited to:

Her current views on redistributive tax reform.

Her current views on legalizing marijuana for recreational use..

What does she consider an appropriate use of military force?

Her plans to improve our current educational system, from preschool up to affordable college education programs.

These are just a few of the areas I'd like more information on where she's concerned. If I think about it a bit, I'm sure I can come up with many more.

I think she could win if she's our nominee, but that doesn't mean she's the only person who could do so. As we get more choices as other candidates come forward over the next few months, we'll all know more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #50)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:33 AM

91. Great questions.

I think that everyone should want to hear Ms. Clinton answer those questions.

And I agree that she could win, and that other potential candidates could, as well. Her "negatives" are likely higher than any other potential candidate that I can think of -- in terms of people who would always vote against her -- but she could win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:30 PM

56. Kicking--sane discussion is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:44 AM

92. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:58 PM

58. KnR H2O Man. Man I would love to meet the people you know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #58)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:57 AM

93. Thanks.

I remember one day, when my younger son was in junior high school, when he came home and said that he "just realized" that he was the only kid in his grade who had a father that was frequently on tv with his friends. That kind of surprised me, and got me thinking about it. I tend to view everyone in pretty much the same way. People are people.

I was lucky to have two exceptional mentors (sometimes tormentors!): Rubin Carter and Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. They were both wonderful, unique men. That same son recently said to me that I was fortunate to have had both of them so willing to invest so much in me. He was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 11:36 PM

59. Strange Fruit from another toxic bandwagon jumper.

 

Patrick..you posted one of the most offensive racially charged messages I have ever seen on the internet with your Strange Fruit post about Hillary.

Obviously you have changed your tune about her being a lynch-mistress.


Thanks but no thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beausoir (Reply #59)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:40 AM

96. Do you have a link for that rather astounding assertion?

I've been here since 2002 and that has simply never come up on my personal radar about H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #96)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:00 PM

104. Have at it...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #96)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 10:22 PM

112. Hey! You asked for proof...I gave you proof. Step up.

 

Do you agreed with the strange fruit post?

Do you agree with Patrick that Hillary is a lynch-mistress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:02 PM

68. We will see everyone with a mother complex project much in this primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:54 PM

70. A fine gentleman I know says men who trash Hillary have issues about their self images.

He likes smart women, so Hillary is no problem for him to support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatlaurel (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 03:42 AM

107. Maybe some do,

 

but I think most of us on this side of the aisle are more about "the issues".

Those of us on the left have some serious problems with some of her positions, and votes she's taken-- on Iraq, for instance, and the whole "3rd way", corporate, Wall Street Democat thing...

I am resigned to voting for her if she's the nominee, since any Democrat is so much better than any Republican, and the idea of the GOP controlling all three branches of government with any of their likely candidates is just a nightmare... and maybe she has the potential to be more of a Progressive, if she's pushed. I always thought she was more liberal than Bill, deep down, but perhaps kept those views in the closet while supporting him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:23 PM

77. there is a simple reason to that the major new story involves something most feel was wrong

By wrong, I do not mean illegal, immoral or unethical. I do mean that it was something that differs from one of my values -- government should have some level of transparency. The optics are bad in having a private server run out of Clinton's NY home for President Obama's Secretary of State. (I will say the same if Kerry had one out of any of his homes.)

Even not liking that, I would concede no damage was done if every quarter -- or even every year, copies were sent to the SD. The fact is that it was already a year and a half out of office when the current Secretary's Chief of Staff had to have a face to face meeting to get the emails.

A secondary problem is that she commingled personal and business emails -- AND it was her people who separated them before sending the business one's to the SD. The Republicans have been conspiracy nuts about Benghazi, but this gives them a present wrapped with a pretty bow. No one is the SD can testify that this is complete or that everything that was not sent to a State.gov account (or another department) is complete and unedited.

The problem is that this follows the long observed pattern that the Clintons will cut corners and not follow rules -- and expect the Democrats to then defend them to the hilt. It happened in the 1990s -- and unfortunately, I worry that many better people, who are more prudent and ethical will be pushed to compromise their integrity to preserve HRC's viability.

Looking back, the original sin of the Democrats, with regard to the Clintons, were to be swayed to vote for a charismatic candidate in the 1992 primaries after he lied about Flowers and what he did to avoid the draft. (I have no problem that he evaded the draft, but he should have been honest.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #77)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:14 AM

94. Good and interesting points.

While I have been following the e-mail reports in the media, I do not think that I have enough information to say -- one way or the other -- about the legality or ethics involved. But it certainly appears to have involved questionable decision-making.

I find it to be a giggle that some people are saying, "Yeah, but how about Jeb Bush or Chris Crispy? They did the same thing?" It reminds me of when my children were little: if they got caught doing something, and said, "Yeah? Well how about so-and-so ..." I'd say, "But we aren't talking about anyone but you." That's not to suggest that most or all responses to the e-mail issue are so childish, but many are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #77)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:52 PM

99. " " " n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:32 PM

82. she has a huge prob with donation$ to the Clinton Foundation from

foreign governments and corporations, some of which gave in the million$. I know she will say the foundation has nothing to do with her candidacy and maybe that's true but the repukes will make mincemeat of that argument. I myself find it hard to believe these donors won't be coming around demanding payback.

Jeb and the repugs have the same problem with corporate donations but maybe he won't be stupid enough to accept foreign gov. donations.

I'm for Eliz. Warren. She has none of this baggage and I trust her with both campaign finances and the nation's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #82)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:41 PM

86. Interesting!

A question: do you think the foundation contributions would be more of a problem in a primary or in the general election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:58 PM

100. I don't know where people are getting their numbers from for the Clinton Foundation.

 

She received almost 100k in donations for her 2008 run. That is IT, nothing else is showing up...NOT 22 million dollars! Maybe someone can help me find it, maybe I am not looking in the right place.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000032675&cycle=A

I just don't see any controversy here and I don't think www.opensecrets.org would cover for any politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:24 PM

89. I will rec this

 

HRC will not be my first choice, but that doesn't mean I have to help turn the primaries toxic like so many others like to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #89)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:23 AM

108. Very good.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:25 PM

101. This is one of the best threads I have seen on DU in a while, frank open discussions, I loved it.

Thanks for the posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #101)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:28 AM

109. Right.

It is a "troll-free" discussion. It includes people who are in all three groups -- pro- and anti-Clinton, and "undecided/ not firmly decided." And only two of the bitter folks, who are largely ignored.

I think it indicates that rational discourse is not only possible on DU, but that many/most folks here prefer it to the attempts by some of our dehydrated friends to derail it, and blame the nonsense on those imaginary trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:01 AM

105. Thank You Water Guy!

It seems to me that there is a very loud group of extremely hateful people in this country. Now my post may appear not to stay on your topic of Mrs. Clinton but it will come full circle or at least I hope it does.

I read many articles today about President Obama's visit to Selma. Most were taken from one source as they all contained several passages that were word for word the same. That was a bit disheartening as it just shows the horrid state of our so called "free press.' But what was more disheartening was the comments. On every single "news" site that I read about Selma today the comments were the most vile hate filled post about the President of the United States of America, and or anything black. I was disgusted! But really tired of the whole thing.

The people that spew this garbage are sick. I thought the worst of it would have been mostly done during the President's first term. I was wrong as this level of hate just keeps on getting worse. The sad part is that the usually not hate spewing people tend to start acting more like a hater then a human being.

When the next election gets closer these hateful people will have to find a new target for their addiction to spewing hate.

The person the hate people hate the most after Obama is Hillary Clinton.

I like Mrs. Clinton. Part of me would love to see her become the next President. She is smart and unafraid to speak her mind. She would be a qualified person to become President. She does have baggage that the haters will happily bombard us with until we know the ads by heart. From Whitewater to Monica to Benghazi to emails.

In 2008 I was elated when she ran. Made a donation was ready to vote Clinton in the primary. I ended up voting for Obama in the primary. Obama changed my mind. I also considered it a win win for the USA as we would either have the first black president or the first woman president. But we would have a legitimately elected President that wasn't an actor or born with a silver spoon stuck in its brain.

Mrs. Clinton didn't lose me, its just Obama won me over.

I have not made up my mind yet on who I will vote for in 2016. But that's ok, most of the people we think are going to run haven't even said they were running. It is early.

What I can tell you for 100% sure is that I will vote and I will vote for who ever the Democratic party nominates.

She will get beaten up by the haters no matter if she runs or not.

However none of that will change my opinion of Mrs. Clinton. I will still like and admire her.

Thanks H2O Man for your normal awesome posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kydo (Reply #105)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:46 AM

110. Thank you!

The media demands tension -- let's take television -- or else people would simply turn to another channel, or turn the tv off. We don't even have to look to its political reporting to find an example that illustrates this. The reporting of weather forecasts is big business today. The biggest storm ever is frequently on its way.

That's not to suggest that "weather" is unimportant. It obviously is. And it involves the very serious issues involved in climate change. It should be a topic that assists us in not only planning to go on a picnic today, or carry an umbrella tomorrow ....it should make us think about our individual relationship with the environment.

But by being a form of dramatic entertainment, it too often results in herd behavior. One of my friends and I take note of how when the local radio station reports that next biggest storm ever is but a day away, the herd goes to the local grocery store, and cleans it out. Better get 12 loaves of bread, just in case! Stock up on fuel, too. And, by no coincidence, the weather reports on that radio station are provided by none other than the local grocery store and fuel company -- which are in business together, and located next door to one another.

The political reporting likewise encourages and promotes herd behavior, including "our herd vs the other herd." And it is sponsored by the very corporations that capitalize off both herds' ignorance. Those news sources rarely if ever appeal to a person to consider their individual responsibilities to the political climate in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:39 AM

106. Social policy is my main thing - and it's the key point where Hillary repels me

I don't even get to the point of looking at Hillary's foreign policy stances, but I suppose I fold economic policy into social policy. It doesn't matter to me that Hillary is a woman who speaks at high profile "women's events", that she once-upon-a-time attempted to implement a health care plan (before she became a "cookie baking mom", and running a foundation just makes her the disperser of high-paying jobs for loyal cronies.

Hillary's husband devastated and curtailed people's lives by "ending welfare as we know it". He might have helped "the economy" for a certain segment of the population, but he did that at the expense of extinguishing all hope in life FOR THE TOTAL DURATION OF THEIR LIVES for others - possibly more. The problem was those he hurt had a lesser voice in politics, so what happened to them just didn't matter. They were the "clay" who could be molded for the sake of the benefit of the elusive "middle class" (that was somehow always triangulating right).

You could say that this outcome was Bill's beliefs and policies in action, not Hillary's - but Hillary's association with New Democrat/Third Way economic policies show that her beliefs are the same. Hillary's practice of enriching family and loyal cronies also reveals her particular scale of values. Like many rich people, she probably has an egotistical fantasy of herself as the Vision Leader who becomes a World-changing Hero just by stepping up to a podium and uttering Magnificent Leadership Words. In her case, the ego potential must be even more intense because she did have a shot at becoming the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT!

As a woman, I think we're long past due for the first female President, and we need one as a role model for women in this country. Hillary could have had my vote. But I just can't get past the fact that her "social policy" seems staged to me. Her economic policy (Third Way) seems closer to the authentic Hillary because that's the way she's living her day-to-day life - in a savvy, corrupt way not a socially kind way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #106)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:07 PM

111. Very interesting.

And very well said. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You provided us with an extremely important example of where social and economic policies overlap. The Democratic Party should have an understanding of the economics of poverty, that includes appreciating that poverty reduces the chances of an individual -- say, a child -- being healthy enough to reach their full potential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread