General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary: 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 Childrens 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 groups long-term vision is to end child poverty in America. If that doesnt address income inequality, then what does? Hillary was one of CDFs earliest staffers, and by the time I signed up as foundation development officer in the late 80s, she chaired the board.
Werent we out to rectify the unjust distribution of wealth when we advocated for child care support, childrens health insurance and tax relief for low-income families? If not, then how did it happen that visionary Marian Wright Edelman, leader of Dr. Kings 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 todays 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
eloydude
(376 posts)and she cannot be a populist and suck up to Wall Street loons.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)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)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)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 Obamas 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 Childrens 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 wouldnt be in existence today if we didnt have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Fighting poverty as a private citizen. Hillarys first job out of law school was for the newly-formed Childrens 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 states isolated farm and mountain country began a career of committee work on health and education issues. And as a board member of Arkansas Childrens 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/
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.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)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)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)It's called sarcasm.
Warren was a republican, Hillary still is, she's just found a good gig in the Third Way Democrats.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I know the sun comes up in the west.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Before the primaries are over, she'll disavow much of her own history, including membership in the DLC, NAFTA, and the TPP.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Just SCREAMS populist. She'll just tell them to sit down and shut up once she's president!!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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)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)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.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of quid pro quo obligation.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Good grief.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to OKNancy (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Logical
(22,457 posts)That is the worst winning strategy ever. Like, ever.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)covers progressive enough!
Logical
(22,457 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)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)women candidates who are Democrats.
But I do not support a Democratic candidate just because she is a woman.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)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.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)K&R
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)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)snip
Shes been a leader with staying power, Edelman says. I feel very lucky to have had her in all of these different iterations. I hope shes 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)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.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)You can Google them easily!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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, its 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 Clintons 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 Clintons 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)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)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.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)$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%.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)and so do many others in the 99%
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)billions. They are supporting a Populist candidate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)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)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)2.1 million isn't going to cut it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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)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)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)and people wouldn't feel the need to write testimonials for her.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)War is Peace!
sendero
(28,552 posts)... 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)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)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)vote for her now. Damn primary! It sure didn't work out well last time there was one.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)Her voting record was very liberal when she was in the Senate