Robert Scheer on Hillary Clinton (he's not a fan)

[marmar]

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended.

Shedding some light on the candidates, I'm grateful.

Also, glad to hear John Kerry get props for a change.

[still_one]

2. Gee, from a so-called journalist who supported Rand Paul for Senate tells me all I need to know

about him.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Which parts were inaccurate? Arkansas AFDC? Glass Steagall?

If there were any lies, I missed them.

[zeemike]

10. Does not matter.

The Paul card was played and that trumps all fact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. In the discussion in the OP, Scheer suggests voting for Rand Paul for president

It's not just a past infatuation with Paul; he still thinks he's dreamy:

Transcript:

And, you know—but let me just point out, I mean, Joe’s point, somehow she’s OK, or—and I forget your writer from the—by the way, let me just say, I was in Seattle recently, and I’ll say again, if your guest from Seattle were to run for president, I’d vote for her over Hillary any day of the week. And I’d vote for Chafee over Hillary any day of the week, because he’s a true moderate. And I would also give serious consideration to Rand Paul, who took on the banks, who was opposed to invading Iraq, who has actually registered caution.
...
ROBERT SCHEER: Oh, come on. I mean, the fact is, Rand Paul—you know, if you want to have me rise to the bait, Rand Paul had the integrity to oppose the bailout that bailed out the banks but did not bail out Americans. Rand Paul had the integrity—

JOE CONASON: Saved us from a depression, Bob.

ROBERT SCHEER: —to criticize the Federal Reserve when it was catering to the banks. Rand Paul had the courage—

JOE CONASON: And he’s lifted every regulation on banks, Bob. Be honest.

ROBERT SCHEER: —and he’s being attacked by other Republicans—wait a minute—for opposing—

JOE CONASON: Be honest.

ROBERT SCHEER: —an imperial policy in the Mideast—

JOE CONASON: No, he beat—

ROBERT SCHEER: —that has led to absolute ruin and disaster.

JOE CONASON: He’s changed that view, Bob, because he wants Sheldon Adelson’s money.

ROBERT SCHEER: He’s had—wait a minute. Rand Paul has—wait a minute, you’re interrupting me, Joe.

JOE CONASON: I’m sorry.

ROBERT SCHEER: You know, Rand Paul had the courage—

JOE CONASON: I was interrupted so you could rant on.

ROBERT SCHEER: Rand Paul had the courage to challenge the NSA, that Hillary Clinton has celebrated. Hillary Clinton has celebrated the surveillance state. She has celebrated using this war on terror—

JOE CONASON: When did she do that?

ROBERT SCHEER: —to take away our freedom. Rand Paul had at least the courage to challenge that. And, by the way, why aren’t you mentioning Chafee? Why aren’t you mentioning more moderate Republicans?

Scheer has not got a fucking clue about Rand Paul. He's in love with him. And while he's having his bromance with a conservative like Paul, his postion as Editor-in-Chief of Truthdig makes that site almost worthless.

[Phlem]

4. Excellent post, and extremely lost on DU.

*sigh*

Thank you though, very much. Sometimes a does of sanity does a body good.

[Cleita]

19. Scheer has been one of my favorite journalists since 1980.

I always followed him on the Los Angeles Times and he was always spot on. The Times eventually was bought out by the Tribune around 1999 or 2000. They immediately dropped his column along with the brilliant political cartoonist Conrad, which they replaced with conservative hacks. If Amy Goodman has him on her show, you know she and Democracy Now! have vetted everything he says and that it's the truth. There is no denying President Clinton's welfare to work program has been disastrous for poor families.

[JDPriestly]

39. When the LA Times dropped Scheer and announced it would print more

conservative letters to the editor -- intentionally, yes -- I dropped my subscription. The LA Times became a joke at that point. I did not agree with Scheer on all issues, but his editorials presented refreshing points of view. He is one educated man and he brings a lot of insight into the world. He is right about Hillary. She is not the right candidate for president. A nice lady maybe, but not a person of integrity and good judgment considering her experience and age.

[pa28]

5. That was . . . really something to behold.

[Downtown Hound]

6. Well, that does it! I'm voting for Ted Cruz! The real liberal!

I love how people who post this anti-Clinton stuff actually believe they're telling us stuff we didn't already know. Yes, we are well aware of Hillary Clinton's faults. We are also aware that she will do things that will piss us off when she's president. We are also aware that she will do some very good things when she's president. Just like her husband. Just like Obama.

We are also aware that none of those good things will happen should any Republican win. Hence why we support her. Not rocket science, people. So you can give it up. This is the same shit Nader tried in 2000, and the result was Bush. Never again.

[Maedhros]

17. Yes - we know Hillary supporters are aware of her flaws, and don't care.

The problem is that some of us do care about wars of aggression, about the growing surveillance state, about the militarization of the police, about the criminalization of investigative journalism, about the persecution of whistle blowers, about the coddling of Wall Street criminals.

When the list of things we have to forgive is orders of magnitude longer than the list of things we applaud, then we should re-think our candidate.

[840high]

22. Thank you.

[Downtown Hound]

23. Oh okay. Draft Elizabeth Warren.

Oh wait...

Sorry, but you don't have much of a choice. And just because I think it's more important to defeat the Republican than it is to remain a purist doesn't mean I don't care about wars of aggression or the growing big brother state. It just means that I see the big picture and realize that there are worse things than sacrificing a few of my principals, and a Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush presidency are two of them.

[Maedhros]

46. Fuck that "purist" nonsense.

You are not worth interacting with. Bye.

[Downtown Hound]

49. Gee, what a loss.

And I agree, fuck that purist nonsense. It's what got us Bush in the first place.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Bingo. eom

[Vincardog]

64. Right it was the purists on the SCOTUS who gave us the coup of 2000 not Nader. Not to mention

JEB helping to steal FL.

[Downtown Hound]

67. Yeah, heard that bullshit before too.

Nader made it possible for the SCOTUS to steal that presidency for W. And no amount of denial on that fact from you leftover Nader lovers is ever going to change my mind on that.

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Hear! Hear! I second that motion!

But then again, you and I aren't into navel-gazing and candidate-purity tests. We actually believe that a Republican - any Republican - is disastrous to our country and the world.

[bvar22]

62. Whenever I start hearing words like "purist" or "Big Picture" ...

I know immediately that that poster has no real argument,
and believes that if they resort to Buzz Words,
nobody at DU is smart enough to see through the BS.

"Purist" LOL.

Actually, the ones screaming "Purist" are the only "Purists" on DU.

[Downtown Hound]

68. You're the one who has made no argument here. n/t

[BeanMusical]

24. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Flaws? More like defects that can't be fixed. Thankfully, there's plenty of time to kick the tires on the Scooby van & consider other nominees.

[Enthusiast]

28. Excellent post.

[antigop]

30. + 1000. I would add wealth inequality to your list. Hillary is part of the problem.

[Maedhros]

45. When the list of a candidate's shortcomings is too long to remember them all,

we should re-think our candidate.

[antigop]

69. I hear ya. Believe me, I do. I agree 100%. nt

[JDPriestly]

40. It's early. Why not encourage someone to challenge Hillary so that we

Democrats can choose which candidate, maybe even which faults and weaknesses we want to vote for in the general election in 2016.

Hillary's faults are really deep in her nature -- her failure to stand up against Bush's failure to fund his Iraq War for instance. Here, speaking to Code Pink she stated that Bush's failure to raise taxes to pay for the Iraq War would harm our economy.

Did she organize Democrats in the Senate to bargain with Bush and demand that he pay for his War? No.

Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren who, as a first-term senator organized the votes to set up the consumer bureau and who immediately rocked the boats of the big banks with her questions and statements in Congress.

Hillary Clinton is not the right candidate. It's too early to just settle for the first gal who asks us to dance. Good heavens! Why are we rushing to Hillary when there are others including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders out there who have proven their ability to work with Congress and to get things done for liberal causes.

Hillary has done good for women's causes, but Robert Scheer makes an excellent point. I live in Los Angeles. The number of homeless people in our city is very troubling. The 2008 economic crisis has made it more difficult to do anything to stop the misery at the bottom of our social structure. Hillary knowingly contributed to that misery by voting for the Iraq War Resolution without insisting that Bush raise the taxes to pay for it.

Watch this. She knew what she was doing.

Robert Scheer is so right about the welfare reform act. And minimum wage is only now being raised around the country gradually.

I for one do not want four or eight more years of Bill Clinton's compromises with the meanness of the Republicans. Americans deserve better than that.

[Downtown Hound]

50. Encourage all you want. So far, nobody's seems to be biting

Probably because they realize that Hillary can win and win big.

[JDPriestly]

53. You assume. She did not do well in 2008 and it was in large part because

of her personality and inability to organize a good campaign.

Everybody is very giddy about Hillary.

I think that unpleasant memories have been repressed and forgotten.

Watch this and refresh your memory.

[Downtown Hound]

54. Ah, for about the one millionth time

I remember Hillary's stance on the war. I don't need my memory refreshed. It's one of the reasons why I chose to back Obama over her in '08.

But you know what? Get over it. That's right I said it. You really want another Christian fascist in office? You really want a war with Iran? Because that's what we're going to get in a Republican wins. And if that's what happens, make sure you can still feel good knowing that you stuck to your principals as thousands of more Americans come home in coffins or without limbs and Iranians have to dig out the bodies of their loved ones from their bombed out homes.

I made that mistake once before. I voted Nader in 2000. And to say I have regretted it ever since is an incredible understatement. I feel downright guilty and shameful because of it. Hundreds of thousands of people died and millions of lives were ruined because I and several million others chose to stick to our principals.

Don't make that same mistake. It's not worth it.

[JDPriestly]

55. The choice is not between Hillary and a Republican.

Not at this point. The choice now is between Hillary and having a primary with alternative candidates. I want the primary.

And no. I will not vote for Hillary. I am in California, and as I have explained many times, if Hillary is our candidate, and if she has not won by the time California counts its votes, she will not win.

We are in California a population of 38,000,000 people, more than 10% of the total population of the US. But we get only two senators, and our votes in the electoral college in spite of our many representatives in the House, don't make us a swing state. We are solidly Democratic. California will vote for the Democratic candidate.

I will not vote for Hillary in 2016. I will vote for all other Democrats on the ballot, but not for Hillary should she be our candidate. That's a well considered decision on my part.

Watch this.

Hillary knew that Bush's Iraq War would ruin our economy. She did not organize Democrats to condition support for the war on Bush's raising new taxes to pay for the war. She did not lead. She is not presidential material. She is a good person, I am sure. But she is not the leader we need. Sorry. She just is not.

[Downtown Hound]

57. "The choice is not between Hillary and a Republican."

That, in a nutshell, is where you are DEAD WRONG. I've heard all this before, you seem to think I haven't. I've heard it more times than I even care to think about. And no matter how much you want to spin it, no matter how much you want to rant and rave about how unfair the American political system is (and you'd be right) that it only presents us with a lousy choice, the bottom line is that the choice IS BETWEEN HILLARY AND A REPUBLICAN. And to pretend it's not is what got us Bush the last time around.

I've already seen your video, so you can stop dangling it in front of my face as if it's going to change my mind. It's not. My mind is made up. And I've chosen to defeat the Republicans no matter what. They are the greatest threat not only to America but to the entire planet alive today, and they must be stopped at any cost. Including sacrificing some principals. Is it really so noble to stick to one's principals knowing that in doing so many people are going to be hurt? Is that really what you consider the ethical path? Not me.

[bvar22]

63. A Million Dead & Injured, 6 MIllion Displaced, a TRILLION DOLLARS down the toilet,

and a failed government in Iraq.....

..and you believe we should all just forget about it!!!

That shows a shocking lack of judgement on Hillary's part,
and I'm not inclined to throw my support behind that kind of shockingly poor judgement,
and betrayal of the Democratic Party. Do you know that the majority of Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR, and Hillary had to cross the aisle to vote with her beloved Republicans to authorize murdering over a Million people.

If it was just the WAR, I might be able to get past it, but she has sided with Wall Street and the 1% every time she got the chance.

I don't see that changing.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Downtown Hound]

66. No I don't think you should just forget about it

I think you should prevent Republicans from ever getting office again and quit beating the dead horse of making Democrats who voted for it pay for something they have admitted was wrong. Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004? He voted for Iraq too.

Get over it. Blame the party really responsible: the Republicans. And punish them by preventing them from ever holding the presidency again. The Republicans would have gotten their war no matter what the Democrats did, they were the majority party. That a number of Democrats caved and bowed to their pressure is definitely shameful, but the response is not to not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee as some here are threatening to do. The response is to make sure the Republicans never attain the majority again.

[cantbeserious]

7. HRC - The Manchurian Wall Street Candidate - The 99% Money Will Never Be Safe Again

eom

[tomm2thumbs]

8. wow

that was a lot to take in

[panfluteman]

11. This Is What You Get

until you get big money out of politics. Citizens United put it on steroids, but there was too much corporate money in politics even in the Clinton era, with the result that Bill Clinton passed NAFTA and repealed Glass-Steagall, and made other corporate giveaways. And Hillary is basically in the same camp, and is a darling of Wall Street and the big banks - and post Citizens United, the political facts of life say that she will do Wall Street and the corporations even more and bigger favors than Bill.

Looking back on the election of 2000, the ironic fact that Nader's candidacy wound up bringing very un-green, un-populist results in the stolen election of George W. Bush is just symptomatic of how sick our political system was even back then. What true populist progressives dream of for this upcoming election is for real populist progressives like Bernie Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren to run - or maybe the two combined into a real dream ticket. But without a whole lot of grass roots mobilization of the people, and probably in ways that bypass the corporate sponsored mainstream media - they could wind up having the same ironic, antithetical effect that Nader had in 2000 - if they have any effect at all.

I'm not saying that Hillary will be totally worthless as a candidate, or as President, I'm not that cynical - she will probably do a lot of good stuff, just like Bill and Barack - and lord knows, we could use the feminine touch, which may be, in many ways, kinder and gentler than the usual male politician. Hillary shines in many ways. But will she really change the whole gestalt of the political situation, as it so desperately needs to be changed, to restore more power to the people, to give them a bigger voice in our democracy? My sister was telling me she had the dream that Hillary might just surprise the guys on Wall Street by going FDR on them - I told her that that was REALLY a pipe dream - until we reverse Citizens United, get corporate money out of politics, and give constitutional protections to the right to vote, we will continue to get political candidates who, in one way or another, leave a whole lot to be desired.

[Thespian2]

14. Good post, and true

[bbgrunt]

18. so true. I'm just worried about how we go about

getting the money out in any peaceful way.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. +1

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Hah! Truth tellers are such killjoys!

But, but the video! He didn't say anything about her wonderful commercial.
He'll change his tune when he sees it, I'm sure.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. http://nativemobile.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Dont-Pity-the-1-Percent-Tapdaq-CMO-Seek

[Thinkingabout]

15. Well it will not be necessary for me to agree with Robert Scheer's opinion of Hillary and one thing

he bases his opinion is because while Bill was governor of Arkansas he did welfare reform which required recipients of to receive training for jobs and then using the training to become self sufficient within two years. This is on the same principle of teaching a man to fish so they have food for life.

[Cleita]

20. Yes, my father, a conservative Republican, was always fond of that saying

and others that enabled him to ignore the very poor people he saw everyday living in South America, while he could live out a very comfortable life style on the dollars he made working there. He allowed himself to believe that their misery, starvation and poverty were all their fault and many little sayings like that bolstered his opinion and no doubt his conscience.

[Thinkingabout]

25. What is wrong with providing training a person for a job while providing a safety net

To provide basic needs? It is the smart thing to do.

[Cleita]

33. Yes, it is. But conservatives don't think we should have a free education

or decent paying jobs either. Hence, we have usury student loans, unpaid internships, and outsourcing. Then their little maxim is that 'the free market will decide'. Besides that people need the safety of shelter and decent food to eat so that they can study and hopefully get a job but conservatives say 'they are welfare queens and there shouldn't be taxes to pay for these things'. How about making it easier for small businesses to be competitive with large corporations? No. Just teach someone to fish and then they come along and find out all the fish are gone from industrial pollution or removed by a large fish packing company. But they make sure the student loans must be paid for or you might end up in jail, and don't come begging for money to live because you are a loser. Don't sleep in the public park either because you are a nuisance to the nice folks who still have a fishing pond to make a living.

[Thinkingabout]

34. I am not pessimistic, I am optimistic, ergo, I have worked in my life, and I appreciate opportunties

in which I could care for myself rather than allowing a system to provide my needs. The training did not always involve college degrees, some folks are not college people, it is training to take jobs which are available. I do not understand why anyone would not want to take advantage of opportunities. Even the parent birds has to "push" their young out of the nest to go and fly. I heard a quote many years ago, "The best gifts parents can give is birth and wings". Training someone who needs a job is giving wings. It is a good thing, we need to take care of ourselves first.

[Cleita]

35. The system provides for your needs whether you realize it or not.

Your fresh water, fresh air and fresh food is because the system provides it. I'm going to assume you like most Americans went to a public school that the system provided. If you lose an arm or a leg, then what will you do if there isn't a system to get you through it and back on your feet. Your metaphor just falls apart when you thoroughly examine it. Stop thinking like a conservative with all those handy little sayings that in the end mean nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Look, I am talking about welfare reform, this was a complaint against Bill Clinton while he was in

Arkansas as governor and again when he was president. It was a program of allowing a two year limit on a person on welfare and during this time they was to be trained for jobs and then after this they could work and provide for themselves. It is not about all the other things you are listing. But since you have listed these things, a working person pays taxes which in turns provided the other issues you are listing. Don't accuse me of being conservative in my thinking, why can't you think on the positive side of people working and getting funds for their needs? It costs to be the boss, having someone else pay one's bills does not give the ability to make all the decisions needed to manage one's life.

[Cleita]

37. I know you are, but to well fed people who have never had to seek help,

it appears like an undeserved handout unless a lot of caveats are attached to it like not using food stamps on cruise ships and other such stupidity. Trust me I have known people on welfare, mostly single mothers, and they would like nothing better than to be off of it sooner rather than later, however there are the complications of needing a better education, child care, transportation and many other needs in order to enter the work place. It used to be that a minimum wage job could get them off welfare but not today because minimum wage is not adequate.

Then there are the handicapped and disfunctional who will always need welfare. What is your solution to that? Hand them a gun and ask them to shoot themselves so they stop being a burden to society? That was the solution the Nazis had. The Clintons welfare plan is a failure. There just is no putting lipstick on that pig.

[JDPriestly]

41. I'm sure it consoled a lot of people in the crash of 2008.

We need to help each other in times of need. Welfare reform was a draconian and cruel program. Mothers forced to "train" for minimum wage jobs, leaving their small children in inadequate day-care arrangements so mama can work for "the man" at $7.25 per hour and less than 40 hours a week. Nonsense. Welfare reform should have at least been coupled with raising the minimum wage to a livable wage level. Even then, why should rich mothers have the choice to stay home with their children while poor mothers are forced to work at whatever wage they are offered? Makes no sense to me.

[Thinkingabout]

43. You know child care is paid with safety net programs. At least traning programs usually provided

a means to a better than a minimum wage job. They were also given assistance for two years and the food stamp program was still available along with other programs. I have to work to provide for my needs and get upset at many able body people who lives off of the system for more than is necessary. In fact while Hillary was in the Senate she sponsored a bill which would provide an increase in minimum wages tied to congressional wages but it did not pass.

Why would you be against training people foe jobs in order for them to have wages?

[JDPriestly]

47. It's great to train people for jobs. I loved working. I am now retired.

But a mother who stays home with her children is working. It's time our country recognized that. The cost of day-care is outrageous by the way. That's probably because taking care of babies and small children is a really hard, labor-intensive job.

A lot of people do not understand that.

If women want to train to work and leave their babies in day-care to do it, they should have that choice. But they should not have to choose between staying home with their very young children and eating. That is wrong in my opinion.

It's sexist to think that a person who stays at home to take care of a young child (whether it is the mother or the father) is not working. Other countries,, that is, other civilized countries in general have longer leaves for taking care of babies. The leaves are not required but may be taken.

[Thinkingabout]

61. I think this is running off in a ditch, I do not have a problem with a mother staying home

with their children, if this mother is so concerned with their children's care part of the care is providing a home, food and health care all of which costs money. I should have some choices also, I take the choice if parents choose to have the children and the mother is not financially capable of providing for those children then it should not fall on me and other tax payers. This would be wrong in my opinion.

I have also worked for many years, retired and went back to work, choices has to be taken seriously, parents has to make hard choices.

[Joe Turner]

16. Well that's it in a nutshell

HRC like her Husband is a political opportunist. Being in the center of power is what fuels her ambitions..not doing what is morally right. When I think of that power couple I think of the Underwood's in House of Cards.

[Cleita]

21. Thom Hartmann did say this today about Hillary.

She knows how to deal with the Republicans, unlike Obama who thought he could get them to negotiate with them so maybe she is what we need for a President. Apparently, what was implied, was that to be able to govern in Washington, you need to know where the bodies are buried and who buried them. The place is so corrupt I don't think a straightforward person can actually be an effective President anymore. Hell, look how they double crossed Jimmy Carter.

[JDPriestly]

42. Elizabeth Warren knows how to deal with Republicans.

Hillary is afraid of Republicans in my opinion. Elizabeth Warren is the organizer. Hillary is not.

Hillary is more of a follower which is why Wall Street likes her so much.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the ones who speak their minds and deal with Republicans through organization and finding common ground.

Hillary does not have the inner strength to deal with Republicans. When has she ever dealt with Republicans so as to get something done that they originally did not want to do.

Elizabeth Warren got her consumer bureau in spite of criticism from Republicans and Wall Street. Hillary has never done anything comparable.

[Darb]

44. Has Elizabethe Warren had ANY success dealing with Republicans?

ANY? I love Elizabeth Warren. But getting in front of a microphone a saying what you think is great, doesn't count as "dealing" with anyone. She does get out there and shout it out. But, unfortunately, it has chalked up exactly ZERO wins. Not one thing she has proposed or spoken about has come to pass. She hasn't dented the Repugnic obstruction, the Repugnic philosophy, the Repugnic electoral success.

Same goes for Sanders.

I love them both, but they appear to be barking at the moon. No?

[JDPriestly]

48. Good heavens. Has Elizabeth Warren had any successes?

The consumer bureau is her baby. Her big success. Yes. She thought of the idea and pushed it through. Don't you remember the hullabaloo about appointing a head for it. The Republicans wanted none of it but they did finally go along with it.

Yes. Ellizabeth Warren works well with Republicans. She embarrasses them and scares them but that is how you work with Republicans.

The Obama and Clinton being phony nice method does not work well. Neither Obama nor Clinton are fighters. Warren is. That is what works well with Republicans. Being nice for Republicans means no dice. Republicans like guns and conflict. Remember that. War and guns are their thing.

Warren is not a war hawk, but she is a fighter for what is right. She deals with Republicans very well. She scares them.

[Darb]

58. She was part of creating Dodd-Frank, but she wasn't in Congress to pass it.

It passed when the Democrats had overwhelming advantages in the house and senate.

She couldn't even convince the Republicans to let her take her place as the head of that commission. She never lead it for even one day. Now, since this is about being able to "deal" with Republicans, let's get back to it. Give me one successful "deal" or "dealing with" Repugnants that has produced anything at all. Anything whatsoever.

Talk doesn't count. I like what she says. But in reality, you said Hillary was afraid of Republicans and Sanders and Warren are not. Show me their successes in dealing with the Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

59. The creation of the consumer bureau.

Getting along with Republicans means fighting them in most instances, organizing to defeat their crazy ideas. Obama has not been very good at that. Hillary will be worse. The Republicans hate Hillary. That became very clear to me when my one Republican sister sent me a nasty e-mail about Hillary some years ago. I was horrified and asked her not to send me any more political e-mails.

The only way to get along with Republicans is to fight their nastiness. It's just the reality. Don't try to appease Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio or the rest. You will hurt too many people if you do.

[Darb]

60. We are not adversaries on this I must say, just so you know.

I fucking despise the Republican fuck wits and their narrow-minded, willfully ignorant agenda. I would love someone to stand up to them more than Obama has. I agree that he attempted to negotiate with them too much, not as much any more, but he did seem to think they would put country over nutbaggery. He was wrong and I knew they wouldn't cooperate on little bit.

Warren was involved in the Consumer Bureau before she was a politician. She had the good fortune that it was at a time when the Democrats controlled things pretty substantially, almost without any political opposition. But had there not been such an advantage, what kind of concessions do you think she could have gotten from the troglodytes had they had more power to stop it? None I'd say.

Like I said, they would not let her head up the commission. So how does that count as "dealing" with them, in any definition of the term?

I like her. But as for "dealing" with Republicans, either making deals, or the other kind, she doesn't have successes. Great rhetoric though. We need someone to get into the office and then "deal" with them.

[Enthusiast]

29. Kicked and recommended a brazillion times.

[antigop]

31. thank you. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. To channel Smokey Robinson, "I'll second that emotion."

She'd be better off angling for a center/slightly left of center seat in the GOP Clown Car.

But... philosophically ( and in every other way)..... she really doesn't belong in this party.

Seems to me, anyway.

[JDPriestly]

38. Excellent. My thoughts precisely.

Hey!!!! Could we start an "Anybody but Hillary" group?

I'm not very good at managing groups, and I don't believe in "safe havens." I would say it should be a group for any discussion about anything Hillary goes -- pros and cons. But I sure would like to have such a group.

[dreamnightwind]

56. He speaks for me. K & R

[PADemD]

65. When I think about Hillary, I remember this:

Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Beaten, Arrested for Silent Protest at Clinton Speech

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten

[Carolina]

70. He is spot on

However, I think the one inconsistency in his comments is making Kerry a peacemaker versus HRC. They both voted for IWR, a callous, finger-in-the-political-wind move due to their POTUS aspirations; a move that makes both of them ultimately culpable for the death, debt, destruction and destabilization that war of choice has caused. And for those who counter that Bush would have gone to war anyway, I say fine, but then it would truly have been HIS war. Instead, Democrats like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd -- the would be presidents -- showed political cowardice and poor judgment and provided Bush with bipartisan cover. Here at DU, we knew better than to believe the Bush lies, and Democrats like Edward Kennedy (a real liberal!), Bob Graham (of FL who even now points correctly to the Saudis), Robert Byrd and others not only cautioned their peers about such haste (casting their votes just before the 2002 midterm elections) but warned like canaries in the mine about the long term consequences.

I will never vote for:
- the mistress of triangulation
- the woman who helped found the DLC
- the woman who is thin-skinned and resorted to kitchen sink tactics against BHO in the 2008 primary campaign when she assumed her name and money would be sufficient until Super Tuesday proved her wrong and she proceeded on to California because you never know, remember Bobby Kennedy
- the woman who in that same primary campaign praised McCain
- the woman who brought Dick Morris into the White House in 1996 re-election campaign
- the woman who shilled for Walmart
- the woman who considers for economic advice the likes of Larry Summers that super Wall Streeter and super loser who lost a billion dollars from Harvard as its president and had to be ousted from that lofty perch for insulting women. Still, he continually fails upward with the Clintons and sadly for a time with BHO!
- the woman who claims the Clinton record (Bill's governship and presidency was considered her 20 years of experience in 2008) when it is to her advantage, but does not decry the Clinton legacy of NAFTA that job sucking travesty, the Gramm-Bliley-Leech Act which overturned Glass-Steagall, the Telecommunications Act which helped consolidate the horrid media we have now, Welfare Deform which has deepened the abyss of poverty

I have so much more to say against this candidate, but I am too tired to write any further. Suffice it to say, if she's the best the Democratic Party can offer at this critical time in history, then we're fucked. And perhaps the country needs to hit rock bottom so some semblance of a phoenix -- a new and LIBERAL phoenix -- can arise.

Go ahead and flame me, I really don't care.