I think I can understand why some people wouldn't like Hillary as opposed to Bernie.

[upaloopa]

The following is my opinion only. I don't speak for anyone else ever.

When I was a small kid we were poor. I didn't know we were poor at the time but later I learned how little my dad brought home. I learned why my mom worked. I learned why we were sent to caddie at a golf course the summer after fourth grade. I've been working ever since. I am going to retire in May on my 70th birthday.

My dad didn't earn enough to support us and could not afford to give us an allowance. We were allowed to keep the money we earned but when we turned 18 we had to start paying rent to live in the house we grew up in. This was in the 50's and sixties. I was born in 1946.

My mom was a soft touch and my dad was not. If my mom took us to buy new shoes we could persuade her to buy shoes we liked. If we went with my dad he picked out the most affordable shoes that he thought would wear longest. There were many other things like that.

I said all that because I was on a conference call with Hillary today and one contrast between Hillary and Bernie became clear and reminded me of my parents when we were growing up.

Hillary is like my dad was and Bernie is like my mom was.

One of the questions during the conference call was from a mother with twin 5 year olds. She is worried about being able to send her kids to college because of the high cost of education.

This is how Hillary answered. She started out listing ways people now use to afford college like going to a junior college for the first two years.

Then Hillary told the woman, "Don't edit yourself. Set high standards for your kids."

Hillary said not to let the high cost of education today keep you from planning to send your kids to college if that is what they want to do.

Hillary said to the woman that she hoped by the time she is in the fourth year of her administration the cost of education would be affordable to everyone. Then she said "but your kids might have to work a little."

Hillary could have said "we are going to have free tuition for everyone."

Hillary isn't going to promise things she doesn't think will get done. If you noticed during the debates she makes no apologies for her positions.

She calls herself a progressive that likes to get things done.

I understand a whole bunch of people do not like the Hillary I described.

I like that Hillary is practical and pragmatic. Maybe it is because of the era I grew up in.

Instead of free tuition she says affordable tuition but you have to work for it and that Trumps kid should not get free education.

Instead of single payer she says she will build on Obama care.

Instead of $15 an hour she says that it isn't practical in all areas but that $12 is better in some areas.

No Bernie supporter is going to like that, I understand.

But Hillary isn't going to promise things that won't get done.

Again this is all my opinion I don't speak for Hillary or anyone else.

[MrMickeysMom]

1. "But Hillary isn't going to promise things that won't get done. "

I hate to break it to you, but she is not convincing a whole lot of people of that.

Like you say, it's your opinion, and we certainly have that here!

[upaloopa]

2. Well she leads Bernie by 30 points so maybe

you are wrong.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. I think maybe I'm not wrong, after all...

We'll both see what happens here pretty soon.

Sure hope people like debates more than Star Wars.

[Lil Missy]

11. She's convincing a lot more people than Bernie is. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

12. I don't think so...

And, as the OP stated.... this thread is about opinions... which will be born out pretty soon.

[HerbChestnut]

4. This is where I respectfully disagree with her positions.

Campaign promises are always a bit pie in the sky regardless of who they come from or what they're promising. For example, the Republicans constantly promise to repeal the ACA, and maybe some people believe that will actually happen, but most realize it probably won't. The point is that people vote for an *idea*, not a promise. When Bernie calls for universal healthcare, I know the odds of that actually happening are pretty low, but if you aren't willing to pursue the concept then you'll never get there. Maybe all Bernie will be able to achieve as President is a $12 minimum wage, but does it really hurt to aim for $15? Wouldn't that be better? I'm starting to get the impression that Hillary has given up. She once stood for universal healthcare, but now actively campaigns against it. Why? What are you really going to accomplish by taking steps backwards? A President has to be someone more than just pragmatic, they have to be a visionary and, dare I say it, idealistic. Obama didn't get elected by promising a slight reduction in unemployment and a kind-of end to the wars in the Middle East. He was elected because he represented the ideals of the people at the time. If Hillary becomes the Dem nominee I'll grudgingly vote for her (probably) but there won't be any joy in it. It will be more a vote against whoever the Republican nominee is. How is that progress? Bernie, on the other hand, is doing what Obama did in 2008 and is really exciting a part of this country. If you want to see progress I think you should reconsider your support.

[Autumn]

5. Can you imagine Trumps and Hillarys kids going to a public college or university?

Georgetown University is a private research university, Trumps kid went there, Chelsea went from Sidwell to Stanford University and then to Oxford. No public colleges or university for them and Hill is bullshitting with that "you have to work for it and that Trumps kid should not get free education" line. Frankly that's fucking insulting, rich kids don't do public. They didn't have to wait on tables, or go into debt , mommy and daddy took care of that. For Hillary to say to a woman who is concerned how to help her kids go to college "your kids might have to work a little" that just seems kind of a shitty entitled thing to say.

[JI7]

19. Jenna Bush did and there are a bunch of rich kids at UCLA

[Autumn]

33. Trumps kids won't be going to a public college and the thought of that silly excuse

to avoid helping poor kids is pathetic.

[JI7]

37. trumps kids aren't the only rich kids around

[Autumn]

38. Trumps kids are the one's that Hillary is concerned might get a "free" education. nt

[JI7]

39. lol

[Autumn]

40. I thought it was funny when Hillary voiced her concern about Trumps kids

getting a free education too. Just like Chelsea's Mom and Dad paid for her education Trump paid for his kids education.

[JI7]

41. lack of critical thinking can be funny also

Or sad.

[Autumn]

42. It's damn sad, nothing funny about that especially when our politicians lack that skill.

[Rebkeh]

6. As a Bernie supporter, let me explain where you are mistaken

Like you, I can only speak for myself.

The problem isn't what Hillary says she would do or her style, pragmatism, or whatever else.

The issue is there's no reason to believe she would actually do any of it. She talks a good game but she does not follow through. There's no reason to believe she 'means it this time' because she has a long history of deceptive behavior and outright corruption. Furthermore, she is beholden to people that are invested in things not changing at all.

It's not about pragmatism, all three are pragmatic. It's about integrity.

[artislife]

8. Hear hear! nt

[BlueMTexpat]

17. Can you please provide

specific examples, with links from other than RW websites, of Hillary's "long history of deceptive behavior and outright corruption" or if not, please stop using this GOPer TP?

Please.

[w4rma]

29. NAFTA. The TPP. (nt)

[BlueMTexpat]

36. No cigar, sorry. eom

[Scuba]

21. ^^ This right here ^^

[lunamagica]

30. Talk a good game? That's Sanders. You guys like to talk how he hasn't changed positions in 4 years

He is not newcomer, he's been in congress for nearly 30 years with very little to show.

Talks a good game but does not follow through. That describes Sanders

[JRLeft]

7. Or Hillary is a fierce advocate of Wall Street.

[hollowdweller]

9. You hit the nail on the head for me at least.

Both Hillary, Bill and Chelsea have never done much of anything in their lives unrelated to politics. I mean they are really wealthy now and they pretty much owe it to the people who voted them in and made them famous.

So then you sort of have Clinton who has received enormous financial benefits due to being in politics telling some lady that her kid is going to have to buck up and work to get into college. Couldn't the Clinton Foundation help? Maybe she could get the lady a job at a hedge fund like they did Chelsea? So the political system can make her and her family enormously rich but her kid is going to have to work his way thru college?

Same way with her hawkishness. Bill was never in the military. Chelsea never volunteered.

I think Bernie's issues are my issues. I do think Hillary is a more well rounded candidate and will probably win the nomination. Not with my vote in the primary though.

Oh and I have been working since I was 15, and have never been on any welfare or anything. However I don't think offering people a hand up is a bad thing or feel jealous about it. Feeling everybody should have to suffer to live a decent life is a republican thing.

[davidpdx]

10. You mean "hate Hillary Clinton"

because that is what any criticism of her is framed as by her supporters.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. Perhaps you have missed

many of the hysterical posts against her.

I have seen legitimate criticisms of her even in this thread, where people agree to disagree. Those are fine.

But the constant repetition of RW and GOPer TPs that I see on DU definitely shows serious imbalance, if not outright hatred, on the part of some.

[davidpdx]

20. Perhaps I have, but every post I see criticizing her is referred to as "hate"

Even policy differences have been referred that way. The Clinton supporters have made it clear it is NOT ok to discuss her stance on the issues.

[Scuba]

22. Are you suggesting criticism of her support for W's Iraq War is a right-wing talking point?

Perhaps you can provide examples of of "hysterical" posts.

[BlueMTexpat]

23. She has admitted that her

IWR vote was a mistake.

In 2002, she was a freshman Senator from NY. NY was still reeling from 9-11. She should not have voted for the IWR, I agree. But she has a heckuva better excuse for doing so than Senators Kerry and Biden - who were supposed to know something about foreign policy - and the majority of other Dems who voted for it did. To Bernie's credit, he voted against it. But he was a Representative from Vermont, not a Senator from NY. His constitutency was very different from Hillary's.

We are now in 2016. Can we please move on? She was an outstanding SoS from 2008-2012, and is greatly admired around the world. So yes, I consider continued harping on her IWR vote to the exclusion of her other well-deserved foreign policy credentials or as some indication of her "untrustworthiness" to be "hysterical."

I do not, however, consider it a RW talking point. RWers LOVED the Iraq War. They just hate Hillary.

[Scuba]

24. Millions of us knew. The idea that Hillary didn't is laughable.

[kenfrequed]

32. No, I am not going to move on.

She has not shown that she is any less likely to run to war or to intensify conflict.

I have too many friends and family that had to suffer with the aftereffects of the Bush war. We were too forgiving to the liars that led us there and the pragmatists that voted for authorization of that war.

Bernie Sanders is the guy that went to bat for veterans of that war. He took responsibility and thought that he had to do everything in his power to try to make things right.

So no, your candidate does not get a free pass on the IWR.


And seriously, I do not believe her on the TPP or the Keystone pipeline either. She merely changed her positions to knock those issues off the table prior to a big debate. Her language on both was so stilted and equivocating and full of weasel-words.

[Kalidurga]

13. You aren't very good at reading Bernie supporters

Most of us at least the Bernie supporters I have talked to like his honesty. No one thinks they are getting a free ride even if college is free and you even get some money for living expenses. You will pay it back through having higher taxes because you are getting a better paying job. So the word free is a bit of a deception, we should call it delayed payments or college paid forward or something like that, because in essence that is what it is. And this is something that will expand the tax base rather than shrink it like 40 years of anti-progressive policies has done.

Why would we want to knee cap any student by making them work while going to school and developing the networking skills they will need once they enter the work force. I say if we have them do any work it should be something along the lines of internships, volunteer work, or workshops on networking, things that will add to their skill set instead of doing some dead end job that someone else might need a lot more anyway.

[Eric J in MN]

14. Bernie Sanders' tuition-free plan is an actual bill we can read.

"The College for All Act:"
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

Bernie Sanders' plan for paid leave is also an actual bill we can read, "The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act:"
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s786/text

So he has concrete plans for these things.

Hillary Clinton is the one with vague, theoretical plans for these things.

[zalinda]

15. Let's just take one little bit of what you said

"I like that Hillary is practical and pragmatic. Maybe it is because of the era I grew up in.

Instead of free tuition she says affordable tuition but you have to work for it and that Trumps kid should not get free education."


When I was growing up there were jobs every where. I knew if I quit one job, I could have another job in less than a week without trying too hard. When I moved to Syracuse in the mid 80's, the classifieds (85% were job ads) had their own section in the newspaper and sometimes bled over into the previous section when the they had too many ads. There were 6 to 8 pages of employment ads every week. By 2000 those pages were cut down to 4 to maybe 6 pages. Now, if you combine paper and online jobs it wouldn't cover 3 pages.

It is now very hard to get a job, and certain employers are making it even more difficult. Some require a good credit rating, or you must be still employed, or you can't have been out of a job for too long, or you must have a driver's license even if driving isn't part of the job or you must have a special certificate (an A+ certificate costs $125 just to take the test, and is practically worthless) and even if you have one of these 'special' qualifications, you may still not get the job. And, if you do happen to get a job, it's probably part time and you have to work any hours that they assign you, so you can't co-ordinate your other job or your classes.

If anyone thinks that going to college is not work, then they partied through college. And even if you get a college degree, you aren't guaranteed a job.

Stop living in the 60's and join us in the real world. The 50's, 60's, 70's and part of 80's were a cakewalk compared to what it's like now.

Z

[catnhatnh]

31. The fact is that Trump's children already get a free education

as in, if they choose, they can go to any school and never worry about the cost. They won't pay a dime and certainly won't be expected to work. And yes-Donald would pay for it.

But the message I get is not that she doesn't want to pay for Trumps kids-that's less than a million dollars-a number to small to matter in the big scheme of things. My take-away is that she doesn't think OUR children are worth it. It is paying for the millions of those kids that will direct billions away from other industries that pay her way and it is her backers who desperately fear a change in the priorities of the American people.

[Cha]

18. Well done, upaloopa!

[Armstead]

25. Okay, but there's a difference between "pragmatic" and defeatist" And we need fundamental change

(I do appreciate the tone of your post, oriented to substance.)

I look at it this way. For 30 years, we've been muddling along acquiescing while Big Corporations, Wall St. and the Elite Oligarchy Class have been looting the country, rigging the game and shutting out about 80 percent of the population from the power tables and the benefits of prosperity.

That's been happening in many ways on many levels. But that's been the overall pattern.

For far too long Democrat Elitists like Clinton have been either ignoring, or actively participating, in that. They have been letting the GOP drive the narrative, and echoing it.

They've been telling us "that's just the way things are" and we can only snip around the edges. Meanwhile they enable the looting and rigging -- and worse, they participate and benefit from it.

Somewhere we have to wake up. We have to look at the root causes. We have to set new goals -- and revitalize old liberal goals. Sure, we also have to be realistic, and recognize that nothing comes for nothing. But we have to address the BIG PICTURE, and admit that there is a problem we have to deal with.

Clinton stands for continuing to snip around the edges, while accepting the larger combination of corruption and public acquiescence that are destroying both democracy and a broadly based economy. "Pragmatism" is just the buzzword to excuise that.

Sanders stands for admitting that there is a problem. He is also saying "We can do better" and the possibility of empowering the majority to re-assert liberal values and goals in a meaningful way.

Here's another way I explained my views on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251905086

[book_worm]

26. The whole "unlikeable" thing is the double standard women often have had to deal with

She is assertive & smart so she gets labeled unlikeable when she is infact, according to many, very likeable.

[Rebkeh]

35. Most, if not all, Bernie supporters

absolutely love a certain professor turned senator from MA. Your point there doesn't add up, not for progressives.

[CBGLuthier]

27. Blecch. Sorry but your analogy just makes me want to vomit. Making your hero out to be the sensible

one as oppose to Uncle Sugar is just bullshit. Nice try but really what bullshit.

Hillary is old news, yesterday's way of doing things and in thrall to the banks and corporations that have fucked us into the ground. We need a fresh start.

[lunamagica]

28. K&R. Thank you for this post. Is no wonder why they are counting on millenials

and people who don't vote make Sanders win. It's easier to convince them that all the things he is promising will happen.

Hillary's base, minorities, women... well, our reality has taught us that if something sounds too good to be true...it is

[NurseJackie]

34. Realistic people have realistic expectations ...

... you know the rest.