Elizabeth Warren: When it counted most, Hillary sided with the vultures

[DonViejo]

Source: Raw Story

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Moyers and Company host Bill Moyers sparred on Friday after Moyers replayed comments Warren made 10 years ago regarding Hillary Clinton and her policy shift on a bankruptcy bill that Warren opposed.

“Isn’t it time to get real ideologically?” Moyers asked. “The neoliberal movement of the last 30 years has run itself into the ground. And you know as well as I do, it still, nonetheless, has a hold on establishment Democrats. To be frank, Mrs. Clinton, for all the admiration and respect she commands for her years in public life, is the embodiment of that establishment, that movement. Do you think the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party can put the country back on a path away from corporate and plutocratic control?”

“The way I see this is that we change as a people,” Warren replied. “The issues that face us are more visible than they were before the 2008 crash.”

In a 2004 interview, the two discussed a meeting between Warren and Clinton, then First Lady, toward the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency regarding a bill that would have made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy from credit card debts. Following the meeting, President Clinton killed the bill with a pocket veto, at his wife’s urging.

-snip-

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

[Fred Sanders]

1. When it mattered most Warren sided with the IDF, Likud and it's propaganda.

[DonViejo]

2. Fred, did you read the entire article?...

one paragraph in particular:

“As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different,” Warren told Moyers in the 2004 interview, adding, “She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.”

Seems the words "As Senator Clinton..." could easily be replaced with "As Senator Warren..." by the Senator.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. A day or three back, another female Dem Congressperson,

McCaskill, iirc, was on one of the MSNBC shows defending Hillary's ties to the Wall Street crowd, and proclaimed that 'any Senator from New York would have such ties, because they're part of her constituency'. (paraphrase, I didn't tape it for exact wording.) Hillary carpetbagged her way into the Senate - she CHOSE New York as the state she wanted to be a Senator from when Moynihan announced a couple of years early that he was retiring at the end of his term, rather than, for instance, her birth state of Illinois, Massachusetts or Connecticut where she went to college, Arkansas where she lived with Bill.

So Clinton deliberately CHOSE a seat where she would have 'close ties to Wall Street as a constituency' - it wasn't a coincidence.

[DonViejo]

24. Sorry, I'm not into that conspiracy theory, "she chose it so she could be close to Wall St."...

I think it's far and away simpler, she wanted to run, Moynihan's seat was becoming available, the polling said NY was the best place, she wasn't going to run against Kennedy or Kerry. So what if she was a carpetbagger? NY'ers obviously didn't mind where she was originally from or where she went to college either. They didn't care when Robert Kennedy ran either.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. I hardly think it's conspiracy theory.

First, exactly whom would she be 'conspiring with'? At best you can say I'm imputing extra motivations to her that you don't.

But I'm sure there were other seats going to come open around the country that year. All I'm saying is that Clinton is a savvy person, and deliberately chose the seat to run for that she felt would give her the most power. And money is power too.

So McCaskill's 'well gosh, any Senator from NY would cozy up to Wall Street' schtick falls flat for me. Hillary didn't just 'happen' to run for that seat - she no doubt gave the same thought and care to that 'hard choice' as she did to every other major turning point in her life. And she would not be so politically naive that she wouldn't have seen the advantages to her career to be had by having Wall Street as her 'constituency'.

[George II]

47. And how do you know that was their reason for settling in New York?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

50. I don't imagine Ms Clinton has one reason for anything.

She's pretty astute, and I'm sure she carefully examined all of the possibilities when deciding where to go. And that's a very useful 'constituency' to have when you're shooting for the White House.

[George II]

59. I'm sure William Jeffferson had nothing to do with it.

From where I'm from, based on the possibilities at the time, politics notwithstanding, New York is the greatest place in which to settle down.

[rhett o rick]

4. When it matter most, H. Clinton-Sachs bowed down and gave her integrity to George Bush The Dim-Son.

Her lack of fortitude and integrity help lead us into a conflict that saw thousands of American troops killed and 10's of thousands wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed including children killed with phosphorus bombs and mines, maybe 5 million Iraqi displaced from their homes, torture became the norm for America, trillions of dollars were dispersed corruptly that we the lower class people will have to repay.

When it mattered most, H. Clinton-Sachs let her constituents down, let the American people down, let the people of Iraq down, and the people of the world. She sided with the profiteers.

I knew the republicans were crap but I put my faith in the Democrats to stand up to them. Instead some Democrats acted as cowards and I will never forgive them.

[INdemo]

43. Shouldn't that third paragraph read "some Demorats"

There aren't many real Democrats left in Congress..at least those with a backbone. I think when legislation comes up in Congress pertaining to any financial bill that would cost the corporate world a fraction of money then lobbyist come running knocking on doors.
I want a Democrat that would slam the door in their face. And we don't have many of those Democrats left. Hillary is certainly not one.
So Elizabeth Warren could win in 2016 because she would bring the real Democratic voters out. The liberal Democratic voter

Right now Democrats should be fighting like hell for an increase in minimum wage. ..but no they make some sort of a token response in front of the camera and then go back to their little safety net.

[rhett o rick]

44. It does say "some Democrats". There certainly were Democrats that did the correct thing

and did not bow down to the Right-Wing. I think the media and our govment play down the damage done by that terrible decision. And the fact that H. Clinton is running for president is an affront to those that opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Those that bowed to the Right proved that they have zero integrity.

The problem we face is the left finds itself against the huge conservative middle of like minded so-called Democrats and their conservative counterparts in the Republican Party. To the conservative middle a H. Clinton vs. Bush contest would be win f'n win, conservative thing 1 against conservative thing 2. If that happens, kiss the middle class goodbye.

[INdemo]

48. Sorry must have had one eye out of focus

[rhett o rick]

49. it's cool

[Major Hogwash]

68. May be, but Elizabeth Warren said she supports Hillary for President in 2016.

So, someone has a definite conflict of interest.

And it ain't me!

[rhett o rick]

76. I hope you aren't trying to tell us that because Sen Warren said that, that make

H. Clinton a good candidate. As a good Democrat she will continue to say that until she decides to run. But that has nothing to do with H. Clinton's record of support for Wall Street especially Goldman-Sachs (probably the biggest thief on Wall Street), and George Bush's Iraq War. H. Clinton abandoned her integrity many years ago. If you want a Democratic victory in 2016, don't nominate H. Clinton-Sachs. If you do, you'd better be looking for a scapegoat like Ralph Nader to ease your conscience.

[Bigmack]

12. Her support for the Israeli government DEEPLY disappointed this chile

It seems there are NO US senators willing to label Israeli actions for what they are - war crimes! When will SOMEONE in our government admit that the Palestinians are people with rights to THEIR land, which was stolen from them. Israel is the last European colony in the Middle East. God only knows the survivors of the holocaust deserved justice, but TWO wrongs do not make a right! Ms Bigmack

[7962]

15. Against murdering terrorists. Like most sane people would. Hillary's no fool.

[Fred Sanders]

40. 485 children would disagree with being called terrorists, but they can no longer debate you.

[7962]

41. Right. Thanks to Hamas,who put them in the line of fire. Repeatedly. On purpose.

And bragged about it publicly. Did you miss the video showing civilians running INTO a building being shelled? Thats SOP for them.

[rhett o rick]

45. What I hear you saying is that if Hamas puts children in the line of fire, it's ok to fire because

it's Hamas' fault. How cold. But the number of children killed in Gaza pales in comparison to the number killed in H. Clinton's authorized Iraq War. But I bet you can find a rationalization for those deaths also.

[Scootaloo]

51. Sure he can - iraqis are Arabs too, and that's what he's really saying.

Whatever its roots and origins, that's what the "movement' has degenerated into; bloodlust and hatred of "amaleks." What could, in the past have been described as a "very unfortunate side-effect" is now the feature presentation.

[7962]

65. No,I blame Cheney for that war. he would've done with or without the votes

somehow, someway.

[JackRiddler]

83. So you might as well vote FOR it!

Hooray!

[rhett o rick]

77. She's no fool is right. She has managed to amass quite a fortune since being broke in 2000. nm

[7962]

79. Ha!!! OK, thats a good one. A true "rags to riches" story right there!

[JDPriestly]

55. And which Democrat did not side with Israel?

Which Republican for that matter?

[Scootaloo]

57. Can't agree on veteran's benefits, school lunches, public education, or DC dogcatcher appointments..

[JDPriestly]

63. Please explain what you are trying to say. I don't understand your post. Thanks.

Who can't agree?

[cheapdate]

3. Goodness...that's an awfully creative paraphrase of Warren's statement.

“The way I see this is that we change as a people,” Warren replied. “The issues that face us are more visible than they were before the 2008 crash.”

[SunSeeker]

5. You can call it an awfully creative paraphrase. I'll call it what it is: a lie.

Elizabeth Warren simply did not make the statement attributed to her by that headline. Elizabeth Warren is on record as saying Hillary Clinton would make a "terrific" President and considers her a friend.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

6. An extremist on the DU caught in a lie?!? Bring me my fainting couch!

I fail to understand why people, who think the facts completely back up their positions, always feel so compelled to be disingenuous.
It'a almost as if they smell the stuff they spew, and know it won't fly.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. which extremist on DU was caught in a lie?

I do believe there's some discussion of the headline versus what Warren actually said (which isn't complimentary to H Clinton), but who exactly are you referring to as the extremist at DU caught in a lie? The OP who followed LBN rules? Someone else? Who are you referring to?

[ReRe]

27. Crickets....

.... they just love silence.

[rhett o rick]

46. Well look at that. A self proclaimed Conservative trashing a politically liberal poster

here in DU, a message board for politically liberal posters. I don't understand how this is allowed.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

64. It's called the Democratic Underground, rhett

Not the "Non-Democratic left who love to whine and lie about Democrats" Underground.

Here's an idea. If you don't like people calling you out for putting words Senator Warren's mouth, then don't do that.

Problem solved.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

66. DU is for politically liberal posters, not conservatives. Conservatives are destroying this country

and you are right in there. Conservatives don't like the ACA and don't like extending unemployment insurance. Boner is a conservative as is McConnell. Conservatives love the NSA spying and Wall Street profits. Conservatives are against everything Democrats stand for. Conservative and DEmocrat are mutually exclusive. And what do you do here in DU besides berate liberals?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

81. Right back at you

What do you do here in DU besides berate Democrats?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

82. I only berate those so-called Democrats that don't support Democratic

values and principles. I don't like conservatives. I think the conservatives are bringing this country down and you call yourself conservative and berate those that support honest Democratic values and principles.

I am against fracking

I am against the TPP

I am against the Patriot Act and unlimited NSA/CIA spying.

I am against the President unilaterally using airstrikes in any country he chooses.

I am for single payer

I am for more control on Wall Street and the big banks.

I am against the XL Pipleline and the coal trains that are giving our coal to China.

I am against tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

I am for honest labeling to reveal when GMO's are being slipped into our foods.

I will berate those Democrats that don't agree with the above. Also, those here that stay silent about these issues because they are cowards and afraid to commit themselves when they are not sure which way the President will jump.

I will berate Conservatives that call themselves Democrats. Conservative and Democrat are mutually exclusive.

[Nihil]

84. 12 excellent points there. Well done. (n/t)

[rhett o rick]

85. It's bad enough we have to fight against the conservatives in the Republican Party

but it's twice as hard when they move into the Democratic Party.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

86. In other words, you're against Senator Warren too

Judging by the fact that even she can't meet your leftist purity standards: "I am for 'honest' labeling to reveal when GMO's are being slipped into our foods."
Because even she's not for GMO labeling extremism.

Warren makes her request for national GMO labeling guidance in the form of a one-page letter, also signed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg on Aug. 22. The letter calls for the FDA to finalize a draft document it issued in January 2001 and to “implement a regulatory framework for the standardization of labeling policies for GMO and non-GMO foods.”

In particular, the FDA’s 2001 draft guidance calls for food manufacturers, should they choose to identify foods as containing GMOs, to use statements that explain how the food was modified through genetic engineering and avoid the phrase “GMO free” for foods that have not been modified. “The term ‘GMO free’ may be misleading for most foods, because most foods do not contain organisms (seeds and foods like yogurt that contain microorganisms are exceptions),” the guidance explains. “It would likely be misleading to suggest that a food that ordinarily would not contain entire ‘organisms’ is ‘organism free.’

It's bad enough that Democrats have to fight Republicans. It's twice as hard when we have to fight anti-Democratic leftists, who do everything they can to unite the opposition and divide allies.

Democrats really don't need a Tea Party of the left. And just FYI, there are more self-identified conservative Democrats in the Democratic party than there are "Strong Liberal" Democrats, so lets' not have an intra-party election any time soon about which end of the party should be "kicked out" (made ineffective), as you have so many times in the past have stated is your goal. You might end up surprised if there were.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

87. Again I ask, what's a Conservative doing on a "politically liberal" message board? nm

[ConservativeDemocrat]

88. And again, I ask, what is someone who hates all *actually elected* Democrats doing here?

You clearly have in your mind an idea about what Democrats should be. Well, good for you. More power to you.

However, we don't match your idea. Like all actual governing parties, we're a coalition. That means most of us understand that no one is going to agree with someone else 100%. And here's the thing. I have friends who are most assuredly more liberal than even you, who understand this.

You, clearly, don't. And you insist on being toxic to everyone that doesn't agree with you perfectly.

You come off as a sanctimonious middle-upper class, urban, white, moralizer who can afford to hold out for a never-going-to-happen pie in the sky purity party. One that could never get elected anywhere. And until you get it, you seem to be set on bashing every single Democrat who actually has to be accountable to the voters - in the messy real world, as opposed to your own imagination.

And because of this, I really don't see why you're here. This site is still the DemocraticUnderground. If you hate real-world Democrats so much, why are you here? Hell, I doubt that even Elizabeth Warren, whose picture you proudly display, would thank you for putting words in her mouth, which is what happened in this thread - and why I even commented here.

If Elizabeth Warren ran for the nomination for President of the United States and won, I would support her in the general election. Wholeheartedly, giving generously of my time and money. Will you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton?

If not, you don't belong here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

89. I don't support people just because they call themselves a Democrat. I will support those

Democrats that believe in Democratic Values. What sense does it make to vote for a Democrat that has the same values as the REpublican party. It was conservatives that lead our country into an illegal war in Iraq. It was conservatives that worked so hard to destroy unions and fought to limit unemployment insurance. It was conservatives that fought single payer and even fought the ACA. It was conservatives that repealed Glass-Steagall, it is conservatives that fight against LGBT rights, conservatives want to dismantle SS and Medicare. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, were/are conservatives. Would you support Jeb Bush or Chris Christie if they switched parties? Don't answer, it is a rhetorical question. Citizens United was a gift from the conservatives on the SCOTUS. Conservatives have ruined our country and you brag because they have taken control of the Democratic Party.

As far as H. Clinton, why would I ever support her? Just because she calls herself a Democrat? Not good enough. She has no integrity and would, based on past performance, sell us (the 99%) down the river for a few pieces of silver.

And now we have conservatives on DU in spite of the fact that this is intended to be a "politically liberal" message board.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

90. Since you don't support who Democrats democratically nominate, you're not one

Period.

Which makes it doubly ironic: a non-Democrat asking a Democrat why the Democrat dares post in the DemocraticUnderground, which the non-Democrat thinks is his sole province.

It's clear I won't ever get through to you and your tribalism, but in your screed above, you could substitute "human" for "conservative". It was "humans" that want to dismantle SS and Medicare (though only a minority of Republicans), and Hitler was "human". So therefore, by your all inclusive logic, you should hate "humans" too. See? Simple as pie.

I'm less concerned with Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, as I am with Charlie Christ. Do you support him for Governor? Or are you going to work against the best chance that Democrats have of taking Rick Scott down? (Don't answer, it is a rhetorical question.)

Anyway, we're done here. Just restrain yourself from outright slander of Democrats and/or not putting words in their mouth, and I'll likely leave you alone.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

91. Again, just calling yourself a Democrat isn't enough. Anyone can do that and some bastards have

like Zell Miller and Lieberman. I support people that support Democratic values and I don't support Democrats In Name ONly.

H. Clinton, the candidate for the conservative Democrats. How appropriate. She and George Bush killed thousands of Iraqi children w/o a care. She has no integrity.

[cheapdate]

7. I'm becoming more and more peeved

at sensationalist reporting and analysis from the left -- which is where my strong sympathies lie. I don't mean all of it. Emotionally charged reporting and analysis are often righteous and warranted. A strong moral tone is exactly what's needed some times.

But, some people on the left are becoming increasingly detached from rational discussion just like the right has been for many years now.

I'm talking about the proliferation of ideas like "ISIL is the intentional and deliberate creation of the U.S." -- which is being propounded on CounterPunch right now. Actions by the U.S. certainly played a role in the formation of ISIL, but the idea that ISIL was created intentionally by the U.S. is preposterous. I like CounterPunch. But I'm sorry, you can't talk intelligently about Russia, Ukraine, and NATO if you insist on pretending that Putin and Russia are some kind of un-reproachable moral heroes.

Until my dream of a green-anarchist-socialist society becomes reality, I have no choice but live in world as it is. In the real world, a lesser evil is unquestionably preferable to a greater evil. It seems like some of my erstwhile allies are fighting for greater evil.

[SunSeeker]

14. Yes indeed.

We are often our own worst enemies.

[MBS]

26. +1 n/t

[joshcryer]

8. Yep, click bait lies.

Warren had nothing but good things to say about Clinton in her book.

[JDPriestly]

60. And in this interview, Warren pointedd out that Clinton voted for the bankruptcy bill that passed

during the Bush presidency. I wonder whether you listened to the continuation of the discussion on the internet.

And the statement that Warren made about not being an insider. That is a not-so-subtle criticism of Clinton. Plus Warren's statement about when and most likely why Clinton changed her support from nay to yeah to the Bankruptcy Bill passed under Bush?

Clear criticism of Hillary. Warren is a lady. Don't be confused by her use of subtle language. She likes Hillary as a person. Most people who know Hillary do. But she strongly disagrees with Hillary on certain very important issues.

And the story Warren told about Summers plus Warren's statement that she could not be an insider? Those are not-so-subtle criticisms of Hillary. Hillary is the ultimate insider.

It takes a certain sensitivity to what language and nuance mean to understand politics. Not all of us have it.

I hear what Warren is saying very well.

Republicans and other conservatives either cannot correctly interpret what liberals like Warren say or simply pretend they cannot. Either way, I hope that I have explained it a bit. It is not necessary for a smart politician to pick fights by pointing fingers. It is necessary for a smart politician to differentiate between the weak, corrupt stances of a political opponent and the smart politician's own morally strong, fair stances.

Warren is a smart politician. That is what she is doing with Hillary.

[joshcryer]

72. She did not in fact vote for it.

As first lady, Mrs. Clinton worked against the bill. She helped kill one version of it, then another version passed, which her husband vetoed. As a senator, in 2001, she voted for it, but it did not pass. When it came up again in 2005, she missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital, although she indicated she would have opposed it.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

She "missed" the vote, as Obama did in so many "absent votes" in his state senator tenure.

As we were told then, but we are dismissed now, Obama's missed votes aren't the same as Clinton's missed votes.

Warren, naturally, is pandering to her ignorant liberal idiotic base who takes whatever she says at face value. Even while in her very own book she championed the Clinton's' efforts to stop bankruptcy "reform."

[rhett o rick]

67. So what's your point? That does not change who H. Clinton is. She is a tool of Wall Street

and she really doesn't care who knows about it. She gave her integrity to George Bush. It really doesn't matter what Sen Warren said or didn't say, we know who H. Clinton is. Nominate her if you are ok with Jeb Bush as President.

[joshcryer]

71. Sure, she's a "tool."

When she did in fact not vote for bankruptcy reform that passed. She voted for a less restrictive version which didn't pass. Clinton never voted for shit "where it mattered most," and in fact was on record against the BS bankruptcy reform that did pass.

Warren is shilling, plain and simple.

[rhett o rick]

74. I don't claim Sen Warren is our savoir but we know who H. Clinton is and she doesn't

represent the 99%. Some don't care as long as they get a "win", but the middle class will not survive if we don't make a drastic change.

[JDPriestly]

58. Elizabeth Warren avoids answering the question as to whether she will run.

I would not take the statement about what a "terrific" president Hillary would take too seriously. Elizabeth Warren is repeatedly distinguishing or differentiating or separating herself from Hillary's stands on issues, especially economic issues, banks and the middle class. Elizabeth Warren's career has focused on the economic problems of the middle class. Hillary has focused on other issues -- foreign policy and women and children (but without suggesting the brilliant strategy that Warren is suggesting.)

Warren's statement that Hillary switched sides on the bankruptcy bill is a call for Hillary to call for an end to the horrific changes that the Bush era bankruptcy bill brought. One of those changes was to exclude virtually all student loan debt, education debt, from forgiveness or erasure from your record in bankruptcy. Prior to that, debtors could declare bankruptcy on some student loan debt. How could Hillary have voted for a bankruptcy bill that denied relief for student debts? It is unfathomable to me that a politician can do that. I believe that John Edwards apologized for voting for that horrible bill that is hurting middle class and poor college graduates. That bill hurts the future leaders of America, making it nearly impossible for any but the very rich to live decently on their own in this time of ever lower paychecks and ever higher bills.

Elizabeth Warren just might run. I think that the chance that she will grows with every interview and every book sold.

So buy her book. Read it. And then decide whether she would possibly beat Hillary in a primary.


I believe that Hillary will face a challenge from the left -- either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warrren, maybe both. I realize that the Democratic hierarchy -- the big-wigs-- don't like that and refuse to admit it is a strong possibility, but they have been wrong before. And I don't think that they are reading the mood of the country accurately.

Now there is one thing that could stop Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- and that is the passage of bills in Congress that can support the middle class -- the bills that Warren and Sanders and other progressives in Congress are putting forward. If those policy changes are not enacted and enforced, I think one or both will run.

As Bill Moyers said, we need a conversation within our party about the ideas that Warren or Sanders are proposing. And Warren and Sanders are not entirely on the same page. One or both will run unless Congress gets busy. That's my take.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Weird. I can't even find where Warren used the word "vultures".

I guess my search function must be broken. Can someone help me out?

[NYC_SKP]

19. The OP subject line is faithful to the source. The OP includes actual language.

Shirley, this isn't the first time you've seen article titles, headlines, used in an editorial manner?

I know, stop calling your Shirley!

[rhett o rick]

75. He knows full well that headlines are added by an editor and often overstate for attention.

Condemnation by insinuation is a tactic.

[onehandle]

11. Warren was a registered Republican, the party of Richard Mellon Scaife and Impeachment in the 90s

I can create bullshit sensationalist headlines, based on ancient history too.

Elizabeth is not running and has urged Hillary to run.

Modern history.

[NYC_SKP]

13. And the Republicans of yore were to the left of SOS Clinton.

Lest we forget that it was Eisenhower who warned us of the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm recommending this post and the other one just like it.

Warren is far and away the better candidate for my grandkids and yours.

If you want a short term payback and are in the top 20%, then you're ready for Hillary.

ciao.

[7962]

16. Well, its gonna be up to the Dems, because the GOP has no one to beat Hillary.

Unless Nader is the opponent, the GOP loses in '16

[NYC_SKP]

17. Why would the GOP even bother?

You're right, they have nothing and a lot of what Hillary offers to the top 10%, to the corporations, the hawks, isn't that far out of line with what the GOP wants compared to a progressive candidate like Sanders or Warren.

I don't see SOS Clinton coming out in favor of unions or the middle working class, or being outspoken about what happened in Ferguson or how NAFTA went wrong.

God love her, but she's a corporatist and some folks like that.

I, personally, want a progressive candidate.

[SoapBox]

18. ...I would settle for a Democrat vs. a DINO.

Just say'n.

[Thinkingabout]

54. Hillary on unions and jobs

•No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
•Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
•Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
•Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
•Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages. (Dec 2006)
•Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, “New Jobs for New York”. (Oct 2006)
•Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
•Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
•The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
•America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
•Recently “we’re in it together” became “you’re on your own”. (Sep 1996)
•Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
•Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
•Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
•Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
•Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
•Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
•Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
•Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
•Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
•Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
•Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
•Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination. (Jan


Hillary's stand on the issues can be read on:

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[NYC_SKP]

78. Wants to Fast Track the Trans Pacific Partnership, won't lift SS tax Cap.

http://michaeledrake.blogspot.com/2013/12/obama-and-hillary-clinton-should-scare.html

On Social Security:

Social Security tax cap

Hillary Clinton supports retaining the Social Security tax cap. The tax cap makes income in excess of $102,000 untaxable. The result is that the top 6% of income earners don't pay the social security tax on income above $102,000. Hillary Clinton called repealing the Social Security tax cap a "tax increase on the middle class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Social_Security_tax_cap

[Thinkingabout]

80. On the FICA tax cap only 9.89 percent of American workers earn more than $100,000 per year.

When collecting on Social Security the amount received is determined by the highest 35 years. If a worker only worked 30 years their total earnings is divided by 35. Dividends, etc is not included in earnings so for the folks like Romney and Buffet will not be paying on these portions so it falls back on the middle class to pay into the Social Security. I do not know how much this will add to the Social Security. I have not seen from a good source how Hillary goes on the TPP.

[ReRe]

29. Republicans have no one to beat her?

Do you remember the "Reagan Democrats?" Well, if Hillary's the Dem candidate, we'll have the opposite of Reagan Democrats, i.e. Clinton Republicans!

[7962]

35. Right, which would mean Clinton wins, right?

Right now, republicans are their own worst enemy. If the election was held today, polls show Romney would easily beat Obama, yet still lose to Hillary. Romney wasnt conservative enough for many on the right and they stayed home in '12. Anyone who might appeal to the independents, which is how you win, isnt "conservative" enough and wont be supported by the Tea Party types. They lose again. If they get their "conservative enough" candidate, nobody else will like him and they lose again.
Hillary has the name recognition, which is SO important. it shouldnt be, but it is. A lot of people have never even heard of Warren. Because so many folks dont pay any attention to politics. Everyone here knows her of course, but the average joe likely doesnt. That would be her biggest obstacle. If she has the slightest inkling to run, she needs to be appearing everywhere she can.

[ReRe]

36. Oh yes... I don't think I stuttered...

... Hillary would most certainly be elected... by a landslide, probably, because the Republicans would cross over to support her. They know a Republican when they see one. Look it... Hillary is buddying up to the wrong side of the isle. I will not vote for her in the Primary. No way. Every time she opens her mouth now, I'm hearing more right wing TPs.

Unlike others on DU, I am not even thinking about a Warren candidacy, as she herself says she is not running. I have no reason to mistrust her word.

[7962]

37. True, but Hillary also said she wouldnt run for office again. nt

[ReRe]

38. Well, YOU believe she is running, don't you???

I have no faith in anything she says anymore.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Oh, fuuucccckkkk! Lookout, the truth is coming out!!!

It's like a goddamn dam broke or sumpthin'!

[JDPriestly]

61. Wrong. In her book, Warren explains why she switched parties.

If you read her book,, you will learn that Warren changed parties after researching why people go bankrupt. She had an epiphany. She, like so many Republican voters, was raised as a Republican.

Who better to point out the failings of the Republican Party than a former Republican.

By the way, Hillary was a Republican and campaigned for Goldwater.

It's how you vote, not your registration that decides whether you are a Democrat. I question why self-proclaimed Democrats (and Hillary was just one) would vote for a bankruptcy bill that made it nearly impossible for students to declare bankruptcy on practically all their student loan debts.

[joshcryer]

73. Clinton never voted for the bill that passed.

She voted for a version of it (in 2001), which didn't pass, because it had protections, those were stripped from the 2005 bill and she said she would've voted against it. If her husband wasn't near death in the hospital making her absent from the vote.

[blkmusclmachine]

20. ,

,

[area51]

21. Hillary Clinton

needs to run for the republican nomination.

[Scuba]

22. +1

[ReRe]

30. +2

[marym625]

28. I have never understood the push for Hillary

She's a warmonger against the civil rights of American citizens.

[ReRe]

31. I remember Hillary standing up for...

... women and children. How long has it been since you heard her mention them?

[marym625]

32. over a decade n/t

[Scootaloo]

53. A lack of thought or imagination

You've seen the primary argument for her candidacy, yes?

"She has name recognition!"

becuase I want to decide my president by the same criteria by which I judge laundry detergent, I suppose? "well, I know Tide, but i don't know about all these other ones..."

[marym625]

56. I missed that argument

Good one. Especially since 1/2 the country hadn't heard of her husband before he ran for President. Smh

[marym625]

33. Just thought I would share

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/31/hillary_clinton_vs_elizabeth_warren_they_have_less_in_common_than_you_think_partner/

[lululu]

34. If Hillary is any flavor of Liberal,

I'm Marie of Rumania.

[Sunlei]

39. “The issues that face us are more visible than they were before the 2008 crash"

“The way I see this is that we change as a people,” Warren replied. “The issues that face us are more visible than they were before the 2008 crash.”

Mrs. Warren hit the nail on the head with a major difference between the Bush admin and the Obama admin.

[George II]

42. I read the entire article, other than the headline no mention of vultures!

[JDPriestly]

62. The word vultures in the heading refers to the personal loan industry that preys on

Americans in financial need, loans them money and then does everything it can to prevent those ordinary Americans generally in financial debt through no fault of their own, from being relieved of their debt obligations.

Meanwhile, our mega-corporations use their bankruptcy code to cheat investors and the country.

Warren explains what she is talking about. People who profit from the debts that inflict misery on others are called VULTURES.

Definition of 'Vulture Fund'

A fund that buys securities in distressed investments, such as high-yield bonds in or near default, or equities that are in or near bankruptcy.

Investopedia explains 'Vulture Fund'

Even highly leveraged firms may be targeted if there is a chance that the owners will not be able to make all required debt payments. As the name implies, these funds are like circling vultures patiently waiting to pick over the remains of a rapidly weakening company. The goal is high returns at bargain prices. Some people have looked down upon hedge funds that operate like vulture funds, which have preyed on the cheap debt of struggling companies and forced these companies to pay it back, plus interest.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vulturefund.asp

If you listen to the interview and to the internet discussion after the internet, you will understand that the headline sums up what Elizabeth Warren says about the credit industry, borrowing the term "vulture" from the expression "Vulture Fund."

The vulture is one who eats the dead meat on the corpse of a party that should be allowed to go bankrupt but is forced to continue to offer its flesh to the vampire's claws.

Is that clear enough? If not, I can explain it in even more graphic detail.

The bankruptcy act passed under the Bush administration which Clinton voted for encourages the credit vultures to devour the carcasses of those in the American middle class who borrow and cannot pay back their debts.

Meanwhile, big corporations go into strategic bankruptcies that enrich the fat cats. If they manipulate their sales and purchase properly, the rich can destroy companies and the jobs the companies provide, avoid taxes and by exporting jobs and importing products increase their bottom lines.

Do you understand now?

The word vulture is perfect in the headline. Perfect. If you follow Greg Palast, you have probably heard the term, "vulture capitalist" many times.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-vulture-chewing-argentinas-living-corpse/

[mvd]

52. I'm seriously worried about Hillary's positions

Of course she would be better than the Repuke, but her history is not so promising. If you think President Obama is hawkish and easy on bankers, Hillary could be worse.

[YOHABLO]

70. Interesting how we can allow Investment Banks off the hook, but can't let students strapped with

debt off the hook, not being able to declare bankruptcy. Sorry but I can't vote for another corporatist. I really don't think we know for sure how Hillary would use her executive powers. So that uncertainty in itself is discouraging. We know where Bernie stands and perhaps he'll run. It could definitely split the Dems apart. Progressives vs Neo-liberals.