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

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:07 PM May 2015

Hillary: No Need to Prove She’s a Populist

By Martin Dickinson
Presidential candidates have to prove themselves every day. But the last thing Hillary Clinton should have to prove is her commitment to overcoming economic injustice. So-called progressives who delight in attacking her are trying to sell their craziest idea ever: that she just lately got religion on income opportunity. Not true, folks, not even close.

How do I know? I worked at the Children’s Defense Fund in the ‘80s and early ‘90s when Hillary was chair. Anybody who has yet to hear of CDF should check it out. The group’s long-term vision is to end child poverty in America. If that doesn’t address income inequality, then what does? Hillary was one of CDF’s earliest staffers, and by the time I signed up as foundation development officer in the late ‘80s, she chaired the board.

Weren’t we out to rectify the unjust distribution of wealth when we advocated for child care support, children’s health insurance and tax relief for low-income families? If not, then how did it happen that visionary Marian Wright Edelman, leader of Dr. King’s Poor Peoples Campaign for economic justice was our founder and president? And why did Hillary chair a board that included Joseph Rauh, labor lawyer and civil liberties attorney, and civil rights legend Dorothy Height, not to mention Donna Shalala, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin and later Secretary of HHS?

When I signed up for CDF, I was a union staffer working on projects like grassroots lobbying for the Family and Medical Leave Act. I sometimes wonder how many of today’s more-populist-than-thou Hillary detractors have ever done grassroots lobbying, worked a phone bank or walked a precinct for economic justice. I had, and I was eager to work for Edelman, but knowing zero about Hillary, assumed the First Lady of Arkansas would only be a “figurehead” chair. I was wrong. Hillary was a frequent presence at headquarters – leading board meetings, discussing with staff, and even helping out with development. She took fundraising assignments, and yes, she made her calls.

Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-no-need-to-prove-shes-a-populist/#ixzz3ZCbiAeiN


67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary: No Need to Prove She’s a Populist (Original Post) OKNancy May 2015 OP
Populist in social issues but wrong in the economic/foreign policy eloydude May 2015 #1
What has she done exactly to "suck up" to Wall Street? OKNancy May 2015 #3
That's for you to open your mind and begin your research eloydude May 2015 #7
you made the statement. It is up to you. What votes? OKNancy May 2015 #8
DLC zipplewrath May 2015 #13
Warren moved left from the right and they happen to be rated together. Thinkingabout May 2015 #21
Which is why Hillary met with her zipplewrath May 2015 #27
You mean Warren only started moving to the left in the past few months? Thinkingabout May 2015 #28
No, the exact opposite zipplewrath May 2015 #45
You sure have your facts confused. Oh, did somebody tell you this? Thinkingabout May 2015 #46
She'll be like Peter zipplewrath May 2015 #47
K & R, good article and informative. Thinkingabout May 2015 #25
Because claiming you can raise over two BILLION dollars from corporate interests for your campaign BrotherIvan May 2015 #23
Wow, where to start. How about when she gave a speech to Goldman-Sacs rhett o rick May 2015 #33
what bills when she had the power to do so did she introduce or sponsor OKNancy May 2015 #34
I disagree. She is very friendly with Goldman-Sachs and gave them and rhett o rick May 2015 #41
you mean recently? bvar22 May 2015 #38
A real populist would turn down donations from billionaires. There is always the assumption rhett o rick May 2015 #42
No kidding! nt darkangel218 May 2015 #9
Welcome to DU... SidDithers May 2015 #24
Links for proof please! leftofcool May 2015 #29
She doesn't "suck up to wall street". DCBob May 2015 #61
K&R! hrmjustin May 2015 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #4
Oh FFS! Nt Logical May 2015 #5
+1 AtomicKitten May 2015 #11
+2 darkangel218 May 2015 #15
+3 BrotherIvan May 2015 #22
DU rec...nt SidDithers May 2015 #6
First female president... yallerdawg May 2015 #10
LOL, So you will be happy with Fiorina???? Nt Logical May 2015 #20
Like how Margaret Thatcher ushered in a progressive era? Your notion is absurd. TheKentuckian May 2015 #40
I believe supporting Hillary... yallerdawg May 2015 #44
I can and have supported many TM99 May 2015 #53
Nikki Haley is the Governor of South Carolina, a liberal man would be far more progressive. TheKentuckian May 2015 #64
Great article KMOD May 2015 #12
Marian Wright Edelman and her husband publicly fell out with the Clintons Dems to Win May 2015 #14
and mended fences shortly thereafter. KMOD May 2015 #19
If the article's claim was true, it would be easy to have a laundry list jeff47 May 2015 #16
but she did introduce many bills OKNancy May 2015 #18
Not according to your own lists jeff47 May 2015 #26
There is a list of over 400 bills she has sponsored on the gov track site leftofcool May 2015 #31
Golly, if only I had explicitly addressed that when I replied. jeff47 May 2015 #66
read again OKNancy May 2015 #32
Again, the claim in the OP is she is such a populist we don't even need to look at her record. jeff47 May 2015 #67
i have followed Bill since 1980 but had not spent much time looking at Hillary's record and Thinkingabout May 2015 #17
K&R leftofcool May 2015 #30
Those claiming she is a populist ignore the fact that she is expected to raise rhett o rick May 2015 #35
So? Fight fire with fire... I give $5.00 a month OKNancy May 2015 #36
The point is that big money wants her to win. They are willing to prove it with rhett o rick May 2015 #37
Big money wants the republicans to win. Agschmid May 2015 #48
I understand. But the claim by this OP is that HRC is a Populist. That's not true. rhett o rick May 2015 #50
It's not chicken feed, but if you want Berie to win he is going to have to raise some money as well. Agschmid May 2015 #51
I am disappointed. You know that Sen Sanders can't raise the amount of money that rhett o rick May 2015 #52
No I understand, and I did not make the claim that she was a populist. Agschmid May 2015 #54
It's important that we fight on in spite of those saying we cant win. Clearly it will be an up hill rhett o rick May 2015 #56
If she had no need to prove she's a populist, she wouldn't have "reintroduced" herself winter is coming May 2015 #39
How does she stand up as a populist on issues like Fracking, the TPP, the Patriot Act, rhett o rick May 2015 #43
Good.. I have no reason not to believe Martin Dickinson.. Cha May 2015 #49
It would be impossible; she's not that good an actress. AtomicKitten May 2015 #55
I agree, since she's not. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2015 #57
LOL. woo me with science May 2015 #58
Ok... sendero May 2015 #59
Helping poor children doesn't count BainsBane May 2015 #60
She needs to fulminate against the Clintons and dog whistle about the TPP. ucrdem May 2015 #63
Clinton doesn't need to prove anything, we should take her at her own word and all davidpdx May 2015 #62
There is no need for HRC to prove that she is a liberal Gothmog May 2015 #65
 

eloydude

(376 posts)
1. Populist in social issues but wrong in the economic/foreign policy
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:10 PM
May 2015

and she cannot be a populist and suck up to Wall Street loons.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
3. What has she done exactly to "suck up" to Wall Street?
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:13 PM
May 2015

Not speeches. I discount that as a dumb argument.
What votes when she had a vote in the Senate were pro-Wall Street?
Oh, and not something 30 years ago.

 

eloydude

(376 posts)
7. That's for you to open your mind and begin your research
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:15 PM
May 2015

instead of accepting at face value on who Ms. Clinton is.

Start with TPP. There's a long trail of crap after TPP.

I've done my homework, and have not accepted Clinton because she has issues with the 99%.

It's all about the income inequality which Hillary Clinton has not addressed.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
8. you made the statement. It is up to you. What votes?
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:20 PM
May 2015

You need to do more homework then. She has spoken about income equality all her political life.
You didn't even read this article did you?

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-lifetime-champion-of-income-opportunity-2/

Working to raise the minimum wage. Throughout her Senate career, Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of increasing the minimum wage and voted repeatedly to protect and increase it. She was an original cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and authored the 2006 and 2007 Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage. As she said at the time, her bill would have ensured “that every time Congress gives itself a raise in the future that Americans get a raise too. This is the right and fair thing to do for hardworking Americans.”

Advocating for out-of-work Americans. Hillary Clinton has a record of working across the aisle to help out-of-work Americans. In what the New York Times called “a case study of how legislative objectives can trump ideology,” Clinton teamed up with Republican Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma at the beginning of 2003 “to help deliver added unemployment benefits to millions of Americans.” Senator Clinton continued fighting to extend unemployment benefits for Americans who were out of work, cosponsoring amendments and bills to extend benefits through the end of 2003 and into 2004, and voting to provide emergency unemployment benefits during the 2008 financial crisis.

Getting equal pay for equal work. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which Hillary Clinton introduced in 2005 and 2007, would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent employer retaliation against workers who claim wage discrimination, or workers who inquire about or discuss their wages. This concept was adopted, in part, by President Obama’s April 2014 Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their wages. Clinton also cosponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which became the first law signed by President Obama. The Act, which expanded workers’ rights to take pay discrimination issues to court, was also introduced in 2007 and was cosponsored by Clinton.

Fighting for middle-class tax cuts. As a Senator, Hillary Clinton supported progressive tax policies that required millionaires to pay their fair share. She opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and she supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients, and keeping in place the tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year. Clinton has said “that inherited wealth and concentrated wealth is not good for America,” and she has consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on millionaires, doing so in 2001, 2002, and 2006.

Strengthening health care for millions of children. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton looked for ways to strengthen the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, introducing bills to allow states to expand the program that she helped create as First Lady. The program, created in 1997, has increased health coverage for millions of children in low-income and working families. Ted Kennedy, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, said the program “wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Fighting poverty as a private citizen. Hillary’s first job out of law school was for the newly-formed Children’s Defense Fund, an organization she would later chair. The CDF has “partnered with numerous organizations and worked with policy makers to build bipartisan support to enact laws that have helped millions of children fulfill their potential and escape poverty because they received the health care, child care, nurturing, proper nutrition and education they deserve.” Today, as part of the Too Small to Fail Initiative to improve the health and well-being of children five and under, Hillary Clinton is working to close the “word gap” for kids in low-income families who often have smaller vocabularies than their classmates. Clinton points out that “this disadvantage leads to further disparities in achievement and success over time, from academic performance and persistence to earnings and family stability even 20 and 30 years later.”

Expanding access to early childhood education for children in lower-income families. Senator Clinton introduced the Ready to Learn Act with Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri to award competitive matching grants to schools, child care providers, and Head Start providers for voluntary full day pre-K for lower-income four-year olds. Clinton also joined with Bond on his Education Begins at Home Act to provide competitive grants for early childhood home visitation, including for families with English language learners. The Act also called for revisions to Early Head Start programs, including training in parenting skills and child development. Hillary Clinton also introduced her husband to the HIPPY program, which expanded early childhood education to economically disadvantaged families. As Newsweek reported in 1990, “the Clintons became enthusiastic supporters of the program, helping to sponsor and gain funding for programs throughout the state.” Newsweek also noted that, at the time, “Nineteen of the 33 HIPPY programs in the United States” were in Arkansas.

Strengthening healthcare for rural Arkansans. As the New York Times wrote in 1993, “Her public involvement in policy issues began only a few months after her husband was inaugurated to his first term as Governor on Jan. 10, 1979, when he appointed her to be the chairwoman of the 44-member Rural Health Advisory Committee. Her work with that board in developing programs to expand health care in the state’s isolated farm and mountain country began a career of committee work on health and education issues.” And as a board member of Arkansas Children’s Hospital she was credited with starting a process “that has trained a generation of pediatricians to work in poor rural areas, and has made emergency care available for children across the state through a network of ambulances and helicopters.”

and

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-fighting-for-americas-workers/
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fighter-for-equal-pay/

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
13. DLC
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:30 PM
May 2015

Pretty hard to be an early member of the DLC, working with the Koch brothers, and claim that you have some sort of commitment to economic issues for the 99%. Pretty hard to make these claims while being and early supporter of NAFTA and TPP. She's trying to move closer to Warren. It's not Warren trying to keep up with her.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
27. Which is why Hillary met with her
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:58 PM
May 2015

I'm sure Hillary's interest in meeting with Warren was in the deep hope that Warren would move further to her left to catch up with Hillary.

Yeah, that's what happened.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
28. You mean Warren only started moving to the left in the past few months?
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:04 PM
May 2015

Believe you you want but if you are interested in the truth Hillary has been left for many years. It was Warren who was Republican.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
45. No, the exact opposite
Mon May 4, 2015, 07:26 PM
May 2015

It's called sarcasm.

Warren was a republican, Hillary still is, she's just found a good gig in the Third Way Democrats.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
47. She'll be like Peter
Mon May 4, 2015, 08:18 PM
May 2015

Before the primaries are over, she'll disavow much of her own history, including membership in the DLC, NAFTA, and the TPP.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
23. Because claiming you can raise over two BILLION dollars from corporate interests for your campaign
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:49 PM
May 2015

Just SCREAMS populist. She'll just tell them to sit down and shut up once she's president!!

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
33. Wow, where to start. How about when she gave a speech to Goldman-Sacs
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:12 PM
May 2015

and told how she thought the anti-Wall Street rhetoric was foolish. Wall Street loved it and gave her $400,000. Hillary Clinton Tells Wall Street She Believes Anti-Wall Street Rhetoric ‘Foolish’.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/12/hillary-clinton-tells-wall-street-she-believes-anti-wall-street-rhetoric-foolish/

A Populist will say that we need to break up the banks. Clinton doesn't agree. She is on very good terms with Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
34. what bills when she had the power to do so did she introduce or sponsor
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:16 PM
May 2015

that sucked up to Wall Street.
Giving speeches and taking their money is not the same thing.
Since she was a Senator from New York where Wall Street is I see no problem with smoothing their egos.
Senator Warren voted against the Medical Device tax ( part of Obamacare) because she wanted to protect those interest in her home state.
That's real world politics.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
41. I disagree. She is very friendly with Goldman-Sachs and gave them and
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:02 PM
May 2015

Wall Street the impression that she sided with them. That's not the behavior of a Populist. I can't imagine her turning her back and reigning them in. And has she expressed an opinion on bringing back Glass-Steagall? Did she ever condemn what her husband signed that lead to the financial crash of 2008? A populist would be campaigning to return needed controls on Goldman-Sachs and other big banks.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
42. A real populist would turn down donations from billionaires. There is always the assumption
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:07 PM
May 2015

of quid pro quo obligation.

Response to OKNancy (Original post)

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
44. I believe supporting Hillary...
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:43 PM
May 2015

because she is a woman is a progressive position. A major progressive position!

If you don't think gender is an issue in America, good for you.

We elected the first black president, and discovered how post-racial America is.

Now we can't support a Democratic candidate because she is a woman?

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
53. I can and have supported many
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:33 AM
May 2015

women candidates who are Democrats.

But I do not support a Democratic candidate just because she is a woman.

TheKentuckian

(25,018 posts)
64. Nikki Haley is the Governor of South Carolina, a liberal man would be far more progressive.
Tue May 5, 2015, 07:08 AM
May 2015

Do you contend that Iowa is more progressive with Breadbags Ernst than it was with Tom Harkin?

You argument is stupid, minds are progressive not sex organs.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
14. Marian Wright Edelman and her husband publicly fell out with the Clintons
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:36 PM
May 2015

when Bill championed and signed welfare reform, ending welfare as we knew it, because it violated everything CDF was fighting for.

 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
19. and mended fences shortly thereafter.
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:45 PM
May 2015
The breach was ultimately repaired, and the Clintons and the Edelmans continued to see each other socially after the policy disagreement. Near the end of his second term as president, Bill Clinton awarded Marian Wright Edelman the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


snip

Still, Edelman says she is proud of Clinton’s work on behalf of children.

“She’s been a leader with staying power,” Edelman says. “I feel very lucky to have had her in all of these different iterations. I hope she’s not through.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/marian-wright-edelman-marks-40-years-of-advocacy-at-childrens-defense-fund/2013/09/29/f0abc816-279b-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html

Edit to add: Edelman and Clinton, celebrating CDF in 2013

http://www.examiner.com/article/children-s-defense-fund-celebrates-40-years-honors-hillary-clinton

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
16. If the article's claim was true, it would be easy to have a laundry list
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:41 PM
May 2015

of "populist" achievements. Such as "populist" bills she introduced while in the Senate.

Instead we get anecdotes about the times when she didn't have the power to introduce legislation in Congress. How odd.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
26. Not according to your own lists
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:54 PM
May 2015

Co-Sponsor is not the same as introduced. Neither is voting for a bill.

The story in the OP is claiming that Clinton is such a raging populist that we don't even need to talk about her record. Yet that burning populist passion resulted in co-sponsoring other people's bills. Or voting for other people's bills.

If you have a burning passion for something, do you wait for someone else to start the ball rolling and then join in?

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
31. There is a list of over 400 bills she has sponsored on the gov track site
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:07 PM
May 2015

You can Google them easily!

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
66. Golly, if only I had explicitly addressed that when I replied.
Tue May 5, 2015, 08:21 PM
May 2015

Something about co-sponsoring not being the same as introducing a bill.....maybe if you look again you'll notice it this time.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
32. read again
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:11 PM
May 2015

Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act to bind future salary increases for Congress to mandatory increases in the federal minimum wage. Under the provisions of the legislation, the federal minimum wage would be “automatically increased” by “a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year…” Speaking to the importance of her bill, Senator Clinton said, “We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it’s critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too.”

Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced legislation to increase the federal minimum wage. Hillary Clinton’s Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. Introducing her 2006 bill, Senator Clinton stated: “I ask my colleagues to recognize the moral aspect of this issue. It is simply wrong to pay people a wage that they can barely live on… We should raise the federal minimum wage so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty. It is past time to make this investment in our children and families.” Senator Clinton’s Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2007 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.85 to $9.50 an hour.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
67. Again, the claim in the OP is she is such a populist we don't even need to look at her record.
Tue May 5, 2015, 08:24 PM
May 2015

Yet so far, her record shows her jumping on other people's bills, and now, finally, her supporters manage to list two bills.

Again, if you are full of passion for something, do you wait for others to get the ball rolling? If she's as full of populism as the OP claims, how come there are a whopping two bills you can cite from her 8 years in the Senate?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
17. i have followed Bill since 1980 but had not spent much time looking at Hillary's record and
Mon May 4, 2015, 04:42 PM
May 2015

Activities until talk of her running for president in 2008. This is some of the information I found was about the CDF. Thanks for sharing some of the background on this.

I can see how she would want to be in the room and actively involved. I get she is comfortable doing the meetings with the citizens.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
35. Those claiming she is a populist ignore the fact that she is expected to raise
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:30 PM
May 2015

$2,000,000,000, that's two billion dollars for her campaign. Someone wants very badly for her to win and it ain't the 99%.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
37. The point is that big money wants her to win. They are willing to prove it with
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:47 PM
May 2015

billions. They are supporting a Populist candidate.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
48. Big money wants the republicans to win.
Mon May 4, 2015, 09:14 PM
May 2015

It's foolish for us to consistently have this argument.

SUPPORT A CANDIDATE, DON'T TEAR SOMEONE ELSE'S DOWN.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
50. I understand. But the claim by this OP is that HRC is a Populist. That's not true.
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:17 AM
May 2015

While she may agree with the Left on some issues, she is miles apart on other issues. I agree we need to defeat the Republicons. The Oligarchs want them to win. But big money (Oligarchs) is also behind Clinton. $2 billion isn't chicken feed and IMO it comes with strings. We need change.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
51. It's not chicken feed, but if you want Berie to win he is going to have to raise some money as well.
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:18 AM
May 2015

2.1 million isn't going to cut it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
52. I am disappointed. You know that Sen Sanders can't raise the amount of money that
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:30 AM
May 2015

the Oligarchs are willing to give HRC. But this OP is about how HRC is a populist. Now you might say that HRC can raise billions and might be able to defeat Sen Sanders, but you can't say she is a populist. The very fact that the super wealthy will give her billions is evidence enough to prove it.

The corporatist candidate may win but she can't claim to be a Populist.

Maybe you don't understand that this is literally life or death for many Americans. We must fight the Plutocratic Oligarchy.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
54. No I understand, and I did not make the claim that she was a populist.
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:36 AM
May 2015

However there is going to need to be money in this campaign, you just can't win without it.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
56. It's important that we fight on in spite of those saying we cant win. Clearly it will be an up hill
Tue May 5, 2015, 12:41 AM
May 2015

battle against the super wealthy. But as far as I see it, it's a struggle for our democracy, our freedoms, our liberties, for our children and grandchildren. While Clinton will "let us eat cake" she will not fight the war against Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs domination of our government.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
39. If she had no need to prove she's a populist, she wouldn't have "reintroduced" herself
Mon May 4, 2015, 05:57 PM
May 2015

and people wouldn't feel the need to write testimonials for her.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
43. How does she stand up as a populist on issues like Fracking, the TPP, the Patriot Act,
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:11 PM
May 2015

the NSA/CIA Security State, invading sovereign nations, cutting back defense spending, the MIC, raising the cap on SS, single payer health insurance, ?

Cha

(296,780 posts)
49. Good.. I have no reason not to believe Martin Dickinson..
Mon May 4, 2015, 09:16 PM
May 2015
"Martin Dickinson is a career nonprofit executive currently serving as vice president for development of a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group. Before working in nonprofit fund raising, he was an organizer and political staffer for the Service Employees International Union. He is a T’ai Chi practitioner, lifelong runner, and author of “My Concept of Time”, a new poetry chapbook from Finishing Line Press."




sendero

(28,552 posts)
59. Ok...
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:38 AM
May 2015

... while acting as Bill's "right hand man" HRC presided over...

NAFTA
"free" trade with China
the repeal of Glass-Stegall
the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act
the media-consolidating Telecommunications Act
the end of "welfare as we know it"

Real populist stuff, huh.

"Advocating" for this and that is all well and good - THESE THINGS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. This falls under the rubric of "talk is cheap".

BainsBane

(53,012 posts)
60. Helping poor children doesn't count
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:00 AM
May 2015

Instead what matters is the upper 10-20 percent's struggle against the 1 percent. All that matters is their anger at Wall Street for eroding their own class privilege.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
63. She needs to fulminate against the Clintons and dog whistle about the TPP.
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:37 AM
May 2015

Praising OWS and wikileaks for exposing Obama's corporate agenda would also be helpful. That's going to be hard for her because, well, she's a Clinton.


p.s. yes this is sarcasm.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
62. Clinton doesn't need to prove anything, we should take her at her own word and all
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:26 AM
May 2015

vote for her now. Damn primary! It sure didn't work out well last time there was one.

Gothmog

(144,890 posts)
65. There is no need for HRC to prove that she is a liberal
Tue May 5, 2015, 07:54 AM
May 2015

Her voting record was very liberal when she was in the Senate

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary: No Need to Prove...