Iowa City Press-Citizen Writers Group: Clinton NO Progressive Candidate

[Segami]

"...If Hillary Clinton were a male, would you support "him" over Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley?.."

If you have supported progressive Democrats in the past and you like Elizabeth Warren’s positions on issues, why would you support Hillary Clinton? Unless you want a woman President so badly that this desire outweighs any other considerations. If you favor overturning Citizens United, believing that money has corrupted our government to the point that it is an oligarchy instead of a democracy, why support Hillary Clinton?

If you oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership, why support Hillary Clinton? She has changed her position on those two issues in response to polls — as she has done on her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Two Canadian banks with financial ties to the KXL fully or partially paid for some of Clinton’s speeches; nearly half her fees for speaking engagements, totaling millions of dollars, have come from corporations lobbying Congress for the KXL and the TPP trade agreement.The North America Free Trade Agreement, passed under the Bill Clinton Administration, caused factories to relocate, wiped out hundreds of thousands of jobs, and has been environmentally degrading. TPP would be similarly destructive.


On foreign policy matters, Clinton is a neoconservative. A vote for her is a vote for the status quo: continuing war, international intervention, hypocritical moralizing, and the killing of innocents abroad. Alternet reports that billions have been given to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia and defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed. She supports the military-industrial complex. Clinton used racial strategies to attempt to defeat Obama in the 2008 primary. Black Lives Matter President Daunasia Yancey, referred to Clinton's racial justice record as "abysmal." The Huffington Post has reported that GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, which build and run private prisons, gave more than $125,000 to a political action committee set up for Clinton. The privatization of mass incarceration must end; but it will not stop as long as profit is to be made by putting people in prison, a majority of them black or poor.

~snip~

A significant part of Clinton's funding comes from Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the ones who were instrumental in causing the 2008 financial crash and near-depression. These financial groups caused massive unemployment and were largely responsible for the collapse of home mortgages, forcing many people into homelessness. Clinton says that "maybe" these big banks need to be broken up or be more tightly regulated, while Sanders continuously cites these financial interests as the source of much of the country's still-depressed economy and supports strong regulation of the banking and investment industries. Clinton has taken money from Rupert Murdoch, attended social functions with billionaires like Donald Trump, and has spoken many times on behalf of corporate agribusinesses such as Monsanto, a company that has done more to poison the earth and its inhabitants than almost any other.


cont'

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/contributors/writers-group/2016/01/03/clinton-no-progressive-candidate/78139416/

[HerbChestnut]

1. Pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Segami.

[Segami]

2. Yup!

[lewebley3]

35. No bodies; that don't know progresives: Hillary is leader of the Dem's

[xocet]

40. What a stinging rebuke! Aside from the spelling and grammatical errors, it's almost cogent! n/t

[lewebley3]

41. You understood

[xocet]

43. What did I understand? n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

63. That it was almost cogent.

[madokie]

69. Almost being the operative word :-)

[BeanMusical]

86. Lol!

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. You sure did not....understood, that is.

[Scuba]

81. It's not nice to make fun of someone for whom English is not their first language ...

This may be one of Hillary's devout followers in Myanmar or Baghdad.



http://www.salon.com/2015/09/27/bernie_sanders_secret_advantage_how_dominating_facebook_could_help_him_overcome_hillary_clintons_financial_juggernaut/

Back in April, Vocative, a data mining media site, reported that Clinton’s presidential campaign page was more popular among Facebook users in Baghdad than any American city.

...

Oftentimes, so-called “click farms” are based out of developing countries and employ legions of low-paid workers to create fake Facebook profiles and then like the pages of clients. Clinton has seen strong growth over the last several weeks in followers in developing countries. To cite a single example, her followers in Myanmar tripled, to 18,150.

[lewebley3]

104. You understood

[tazkcmo]

62. And no response to the specifics?

Just "They're nobodies, Clinton is Somebody, leader of the Dems." Don't refute what their reasons for not supporting her or why they like Sanders better. Just be dismissive. Good job.

[merrily]

78. Ever hear of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for?"

[lewebley3]

101. Senator Harkin is working very hard for Hillary: he

is an Iowan progressive leader that has great faith
in Hillary.

[lewebley3]

109. What specifics is not self evident: Hillary helped elect

the progressive caucus in the Senate and the house,
Hillary has believed for thirty years in the Dem party.

If you need more you need to go to the lib, or purchase
Hillary million selling book, that tells you everything you
don't want to here.

Hillary is the real thing when it come to serving the American
' people.

[sabrina 1]

67. I know progressives and they all agree with those 'nobodies'. Hillary's policies

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

are so far from progressive, it would be better to simply stop attackiing progressives and explaining why she doesn't like progressive policies. But pretending to be something you are not, rarely ever works.

[CorporatistNation]

71. K and R... Hillary Might If She Fares Poorly want to Interview With...

Goldman...

[JackInGreen]

93. Oh that'll happen

Whether it's now or later.

[lewebley3]

100. Wrong most progressive are voting for Hillary:Polls show it

[Duckfan]

103. Exactly.

The "Cut It Out" policy.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. What did you say?

My ex-wife didn't learn English until she was in her late teens and writes more clearly than you do, sir.

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. In a nutshell.

[99Forever]

3. K.R

[WillyT]

4. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[brooklynite]

5. "If Hillary Clinton were a male, would you support "him" over Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley?"

You bet I would; I'm going for a candidate with the toughness to win a nasty national General Election.

[rhett o rick]

9. Toughness shouldn't be the top qualification for a Democratic candidate. The candidate

should have empathy, something that conservatives lack. We need someone that will work for the people and not their friends in the Wealthy 1%. Margaret Thatcher was tough but I wouldn't vote for her either.

[pangaia]

31. Home run !!!!

[Kentonio]

13. You don't think a guy who won election in Vermont as a radical independent

And then spent decades handily beating both major parties is tough? The same guy who was one the few to follow his conscience and make unpopular votes against the political tide time after time after time? The same guy who stood up and gave an 8 and a half hour long filibuster speech? Really?

[brooklynite]

22. in Vermont? The smallest State in the nation? No.

[catnhatnh]

47. Amazing-Not just wrong again but wrong two ways!!!

Wyoming has a smaller population and 7 states are physically smaller.Try again-maybe you'll get one fact right, even if by accident...

[A Simple Game]

50. Smallest State? That's hard to believe. Just how are you measuring that?

It would be hard to trust anything else you say if I can't believe such an easily verifiable statistic in your post. So...let's have a link please.

Other than that, what does the State's size have to do with the issues Bernie is raising and wanting to change?

[Art_from_Ark]

61. Yeah, it's much better to be from the biggest state

like Nixon and Reagan were

[A Simple Game]

66. Were there any other large State great minds? Oh yeah, how about Bush and Palin. n/t

This could be fun, want to keep playing Brooklynite?

[SammyWinstonJack]

87. Ha! Highly doubt he's backing her because she's the tough candidate to win a nasty GE.

WALL STREET.

[Divernan]

90. Don't make fun of him, you peasant! He owns a Ferrari!

Plus, he says he's in the One Percent. I'm just so humbled that he finds time in his very special life to post here on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5828942

He also says he's a 25 year government employee (I think the One Percent money comes from his lawyer wife). God, I hope he doesn't have to lower himself to deal with citizens. You can just imagine the empathy he'd show to someone on disability or welfare. Hopefully he's an accountant or something where he can avoid the hoi polloi!

brooklynite (27,127 posts)
80. ...but I'm still a 1%er, so that's all that counts...
Now, excuse me while I go pick up my top hat and cape from the Cleaners.

And from his journal:

As for me and my wife? I've worked for the Government for 25 years; my wife is a successful lawyer who works for responsible clients. We chose to under-pay for housing in our early years so we could afford a nice house later; we chose not to have children; and we invest our available funds responsibly to build a nest-egg. That answer your question?
Posted by brooklynite | Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:00 AM (2 replies)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~brooklynite

[Divernan]

89. I even heard Vermont has no Ferrari dealerships! Quelle horreur!

What kind of mileage do you get on yours anyway? Or were you just kidding when you said you owned a Ferrari? I'm sure that you are not shy about your self-proclaimed One Percent status.

brooklynite (27,127 posts)
80. ...but I'm still a 1%er, so that's all that counts...

Now, excuse me while I go pick up my top hat and cape from the Cleaners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5828942

Fun fact! New money doesn't grasp that quality beats quantity!

[Perogie]

92. Facts are not your strong point

[TheProgressive]

17. Clinton is despised by republicans, and real Democrats ...

...know Clinton is at best a moderate...

We need progressive leadership and Sanders is that person.

Also, Senator Sanders will draw in the republican vote as he has done for decades...

[rhett o rick]

28. Those that don't understand this are jeopardizing our chances in the General. They didn't

learn a thing from 2000. The hubris of the Democratic Leadership will ignore the grassroots and manipulate a DLC candidate, just like 2000. This time they won't have Nader to scapegoat.

[A Simple Game]

51. Never fear. They will still blame it on the liberals as usual.

In regards to this liberal, this time they will probably be right.

[rhett o rick]

54. It's not the liberal's fault if the Democratic Party Elite don't promote a candidate that

will help the people. As long as they push a DLC/Third Way candidate, they get full responsibility.

[A Simple Game]

56. I agree with every word you said, but they will never accept responsibility for failure. n/t

[dreamnightwind]

77. They're ideologically opposed to progressive politics

at least the way I define it. It isn't that they don't learn, or that they fail, it's that they are working for corporate goals instead of populist ones, and corporate goals are not furthered by supporting someone like Sanders.

For a long time I clung to the belief that they just thought they needed big business money to win elections, and would rather enact progressive policies and elect progressive leaders if it was practical.

This late in the game, however, it is completely obvious that they are literally not on our side, they oppose what we believe, they make their money from corporate sources and have fully bought into the worldview sold by DLC-PPI-Third Way/No Labels corporate institutions. It is actually very similar to the worldview promoted by the Kochs and the AEI-Heritage people, practically indistinguishable in the areas of economic policy and foreign policy.

They aren't fools, and they are no longer fooling as many of the electorate.

The biggest failure, in their eyes, IMHO, is not for Trump or another Bush to be elected, it is for Sanders to be elected. Pretty much every other candidate, for them, means businss as usual continues unabated, and we know from hard experience who benefits from that.

I'm just continuing this conversation, not directing this at you really, but at anyone reading the thread. I'm so sick of people like the Clintons and even Obama being presented to us as agents of progressive change, it's wrong and needs to be countered until it stops happening.

Obama was a decent centrist corporatist whose steady hand in troubled waters was probably better than a hair-on-fire RW'er, but didn't approach, nor even articulate, the reforms we thought we elected him to implement as the change agent he campaigned to be.

Now they want more of the same, in fact they want the person we rejected for Obama's change platform, and they want us to think we're supporting a progressive by supporting Clinton. We actually have an excellent progressive candidate who can win the general election, and we need to support him with everything we can muster.

[raouldukelives]

79. You got it. The last thing they want is someone who threatens the gravy train.

If they all feed from the same trough, just how different are they? Only as different as the best handlers corporate money can buy can make them appear.

[Enthusiast]

80. I agree.

[Scuba]

82. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Read This Reply !! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Thespian2]

94. Excellent response

[Duckfan]

106. Absolutely.

And DWS will never take responsibility for Dem's getting their asses handed to them in the Mid-terms. Makes me want to

[jmowreader]

45. Senator Sanders has not drawn one vote from anywhere outside Vermont in his life

And Vermont ain't exactly the hotbed of conservatism.

Got news for ya, Progressive: Sanders' self-identification as a socialist will lead to utter defeat for our party.

[catnhatnh]

49. Neither has Hillary Clinton

and for the same reason...

[PotatoChip]

84. He has drawn votes from Representatives and Senators from all over the US

in support of many successful policies that he advocated for, via bill or amendments.

I would hope that would count for something, even if you insist on being dismissive of his Vermont voters/constituency.

Regarding Bernie's Democratic Socialism, the S label didn't stop President Obama from winning election and reelection to the highest office in the land, despite the inaccurate smear it was intended to be.

[Duckfan]

108. Why don't you ask the several thousand people who have attended his rallys

if his identification will lead to defeat. And then the few million or so working on his campaign across the country. Ask them that question.

[jmowreader]

117. Why don't you ask the other 290 million people in America that question?

There are a LOT of people who don't want a socialist president, and not all of them are Republicans.

[pangaia]

34. Toughness ??

Sounds like Sanders to me.

[hopemountain]

64. toughness and decency are his

magic formula - but, for far too many, toughness cannot also mean decency - which is why hillary has lost her way on the higher road.

[pangaia]

70. I hope it is going to be the 2004 ALCS all over again.

Red Sox...... greatest comeback in all of sports history !!!!

[thereismore]

6. Bernie is getting some really good press. This is great. nt

[floriduck]

7. Outsiders can see this but

Hill people are clueless on Hill's lack of progressive values. They really must have some sort of ideology blockage. But they crack me up with their vitriol.

[rhett o rick]

10. IMO some of her supporters don't want a progressive. Too scarey. Some think she is progressive but

have no clue what that means. Some don't care whether she is progressive or not, they like a tough leader thinking that will make them more secure. Sadly they don't heed Franklin when he said that if you give up your freedoms and liberties for security, you deserve neither.

[antigop]

16. Some benefit from the status quo.

Some haven't been burned (yet) by the status quo.

Some just want a female prez soooo badly.

[floriduck]

29. I'm fine with a woman president as long

as they share Bernie's values. Elizabeth Warren would have made Hill look ridiculous on the campaign trail. But we need her in the Senate to lead the weak-kneed Dems down the correct path.

[PyaarRevolution]

42. Like I said...

Some people are in a bubble when it comes to Hillary and I echo your first sentence in that respect. By then they'll look at Sanders and they better hope their votes didn't make Hillary the nominee.

[Duckfan]

110. rhett o rick scores!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

116. Thanks, but just one thing

Are you an Oregon Ducks fan?

[rhett o rick]

11. It's an opinion piece. nm

[thereismore]

12. A native Iowan wrote this to the newspaper. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. It's all so obvious.

We just have to assume the people who are voting for her and her RW policies, also support those RW policies.

We NEED Bernie. He must be elected President or this country will never be free of the Oligarchs.
If they're allowed to continue their hostile takeover of our country, things will only get worse for WE THE PEOPLE - the peon middle class, the 99%.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Blue_Adept]

32. If you're not with us, you're against us!

[Maedhros]

105. It's more like the old saying: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." [n/t]

[CharlotteVale]

15. K&R

[azmom]

18. Kick

[rurallib]

19. As one of the many local papers Gannet bought up back in the 90s

the Press-Citizen has little impact on opinion much anymore. I don't think many newspapers do anymore.

[stupidicus]

20. I thought it clear from the beginning

that if you're basing your vote on an objective evaluation of their public records and current policy proposals, then Bernie has to win, or you're a 3rdwayer and part of the problem with your half-assed, corporate-friendly solutions, like the ACA, etc.

Electability issues are no longer tenable as an objection to his candidacy, and just because she's a woman is something only a grade school level mind would consider important in comparison to all the rest.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[Duval]

23. Thanks, Segami. K&R

It seems I'm thanking you every day for your posts. Way to go, my friend, and keep up the good work.

[firebrand80]

24. I always support the best candidate

In '08, it was Obama. This year it's Hillary

[NurseJackie]

26. I too!

[Gamecock Lefty]

25. A writer's group says Hillary is no progressive?

OK, my question back - SO WHAT THE HELL???

[AzDar]

27. K & R

[vkkv]

30. Of COURSE she isn't - She's a CORPORATIST!

Anyone who doesn't see that is off their rocker.

[rhett o rick]

36. But some have re-defined "progressive" as one that says something nice about women's rights.

Apparently it doesn't matter that she betrayed progressives when she helped her friend George Bush invade Iraq.

That decision alone disqualifies her from being labelled a progressive. She is best described as DLC/The Third Way.

[cascadiance]

75. Yep, the third wayers confuse them with organizations like the "Progressive Policy Institute" and...

the "Progressive Coalition for American Jobs" (which has been used to push the TPP), and think that these organizations in their efforts to redefine the term "progressive" as something that shares more with corporatism than the REAL and opposite definition of progressivism that defines policies as being supportive of the welfare of the 99%. Therefore Hillary supporters think Hillary must be progressive since she shares organizational and philosophical ties with these misnamed organizations.

[lewebley3]

37. Hillary is not a corporatist ; That is Sander Propaganda: It won't sell

Because isn't true

[PyaarRevolution]

44. Lay out your case.

I mean there's NAFTA and she helped author TPP so she's WAAAAAYYYYY behind the 8 ball there. Honestly though, challenge me.

[vkkv]

58. 'crickets' ___________________ n/t

[lewebley3]

107. Hillary is in public service: The TTP is Obama's thing :

Her timing was just fine, she came out against after it
was finished.

Your easy to challenge: Hillary didn't author or approve
either trade deal.

[vkkv]

57. All of the big Corporate Donations indicate otherwise. It doesn't have to "sell" - you are

LYING.

[lewebley3]

102. Hillary history in politics is that she cannot be brought

Sanders is owned by the Gun industry by your reasoning

[Duckfan]

111. Can't be bought???????

[lewebley3]

114. Koch brother would not hate the Clintons so much if they could

have brought Clintons.

[vkkv]

113. Hillary APPROVED Arm Sales to nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation - Mother Jones

Is that what you mean? You might want to look into this and reframe your initial statement of ""Hillary history in politics is that she cannot be brought (sic) ""

Mother Jones:

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

Slate::
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/26/clinton_foundation_state_department_weapons_deals_donations_approval_coincided.html
Repressive Regimes Donated to Clinton Foundation, Got Federal Approval for Arms Deals

Blaze:::
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/26/under-hillary-clinton-state-dept-approved-165-billion-in-arms-sales-to-countries-with-one-thing-in-common/
Under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department approved $165 billion worth of arms sales to 20 nations whose governments donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation.

"""Sanders is owned by the Gun industry by your reasoning"""

Bernie has said that he represents the entire state of Vermont - not just those who are afraid of guns.

I WAS afraid of guns, though I always thought that the physics was fascinating, just like my old "Bangsite Cannon" that I had when I was a kid. I was brought up in a home that was very much anti-gun, we were allowed bow and arrows though... But since I moved from the crowded California coast, S.F. and Monterey, to the Sierra foothills and have 5 beautiful acres with coyotes, bears, trout, bobcats, jack-rabbits ( none of which I would attempt to kill) I asked myself if I really wanted to remain afraid of guns - nope. So I learned a new skill in handling rifles and shotguns. I am no longer afraid of legally owned long-guns and am a better person for it. Handguns should just be ILLEGAL everywhere IMO.

[lewebley3]

115. Hillary didn't have a foreign policy: Obama did: She was a

Secretary not a President.

[vkkv]

121. Like talking to a wall... n/t

[lewebley3]

122. No its just a fact:We have one President at time

[vkkv]

128. The Arms Sale Process - Read up on it sometime

From the Dept of STATE.
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/2014/225118.htm

Conventional Arms Transfer Policy: Advancing American National Security Through Security Cooperation

Remarks
Gregory M. Kausner
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Remarks to IISS
Washington, DC
April 23, 2014

The Arms Sale Process

Some refer to our arms transfer decision-making process as onerous, inflexible, and arcane. There is no question; it is not perfect. As the policy states, we will continue to pursue efforts to streamline security cooperation. The deliberate review of U.S. arms transfers, however, is an affirmation of how seriously we take this business.

Both the Departments of State and Defense assess the policy and technical impacts of each and every transfer. The U.S. Congress plays a vital oversight role as well. All major arms transfers require us to notify Congress, and an extensive consultation process exists to ensure that congressional concerns are addressed.

Now, we often hear the question – do you ever reject an arms transfer? Although we do not advertise such decisions, we reject sales all the time. ( meaning the State Dept!)

When we decide to move forward with a transfer, however, transparency remains a hallmark of the CAT policy – in fact, our major Foreign Military Sales are posted upon notification to Congress on the public website of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the texts of both Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales notifications are published in the Federal Register.

Conclusion

We recognize the challenges associated with U.S. arms transfers. Across the interagency, we work day in and day out to ensure transfers are carefully considered, and made – or denied – for the right reasons that promote American security and reflect American values.

Each delivery of U.S. security assistance sends a message to our friends and foes. It is an act of support and trust for our partners and allies. It provides them the capabilities to defend themselves, and to provide for the stability of their region.

The advantages of security assistance as both a complement to, and a substitute for, U.S. “boots on the ground” are clear and compelling. As someone who works these issues every day, however, I will be the first to tell you that the decision to train or equip a foreign partner is not always an easy one. Yet we cannot simply turn our back on the complexities of building partner capacity. To do so would open the door for other suppliers and actors. It would hamper our allies’ efforts to work with us on common security issues. It would distance us from our partners.

It would disadvantage the very industry on which we rely for our technological security capabilities and advantage. It would take away our voice in circumstances where it might matter the most.

So, we transfer arms with our eyes wide open, with laws, regulation, and policy designed to reflect caution, but also shaped to ensure that our security policy supports, and reinforces, our foreign policy. And we see results every day, from coalition operations against shared threats, to multinational training exercises, to the conversations that occur between American troops and foreign partners – partners who came here for training and left here as friends. We will remain cautious in using arms transfers as a tool of foreign policy, but we should never forget that our national security is in many ways dependent upon, and advanced as a result of, our security cooperation.

Thank you.

[cascadiance]

76. So how is supporting EXPANSION of H-1b indentured servant program "progressive" and not corporatist?

Please explain rationally, if that's possible!

[lewebley3]

112. Hillary has not owned a corporation or been in control of one:

if she did she would be a GOP person: By crazy reasoning
she should have quit the Dem's long ago: Maybe, just
maybe Hillary has her heart in the right place when
it comes to country and party. We know she
and Bill have given the lives up to fight for the
American people.



Explain how Sanders is a progressive when he is owned
by the NRA Gun owners

Rationally if that is possible?

[cascadiance]

118. Again, your sentences make no sense...

You do understand the term corporatist don't you? You do understand that she can be a corporatist, and not necessarily own a corporation. And you also perhaps might understand that not all who own companies are GOP people. Warren Buffet owns a lot but doesn't seem to be infected by the disease of inherently needing to be in the GOP as a result.

Again, please answer the question I posed. How is being for H-1B program expansion as she has been clearly in the past not the position of a corporatist? For many here, it clearly puts her against the American worker taking a stance for rich friends of hers on that program.

[lewebley3]

123. Yes, I do and Hillary is has been public serve working for all Americans

You are the one spreading the Sanders propaganda against
Hillary.

[cascadiance]

124. What is "public serve". That is NOT the English language as most of us understand...

Now if you mean "has been a public servant" then SAY THAT and stop talking like a kid in grade school that is going to get an F in English class if you are trying to persuade us to your point of view. You just make the case for many of us here that in order to follow Hillary, your mind isn't as in gear as the minds of the rest of us are and that perhaps that is typical of Hillary followers (which is likely not the case as many here are able to speak well). Normally I'm not too critical in that regard, but you seem to make a point of criticizing the rest of us heavily, and not being very descriptive in your criticisms towards us which really in just about all of your threads has interacting with you just devolve in to a name calling exercise. You STILL have NOT explained SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with socialism. You only demonstrate that you have the capacity that many right wingers have of just echoing it as an expletive that means NOTHING to those of us who want some real change in this country, who look at how democratic socialism is being practiced in places like Sweden where they have some of the happiest people on earth, and where if you show Americans bar charts showing their more balanced wealth divide versus our extreme wealth divide, most Americans interviewed for such studies choose Sweden as the society they'd rather have than even a less extreme divide they are shown than what we actually have in this country.

I'm only taking issue with YOUR ATTEMPT at propaganda against Sanders by saying Americans won't vote for a socialist as if that is a reason to vote for Hillary.

[lewebley3]

125. You willfully want to mislead and misunderstand Hillary's

contributions to America; because you have emotional
relationship with Sanders not a rational one

You need to do some homework, on Hillary before
whinny and complain about someone you obvious
no nothing about.

[pangaia]

33. She's tough, experienced and electable, dontcha know.

Well..........

[George II]

38. That's an OP Ed, not the opinion of the newspaper. That should be pointed out clearly.

[Segami]

73. The header is crystal clear....

[George II]

91. No it isn't.

[Segami]

95. Yes it is.

Good day!

[marble falls]

39. Nothing over the top or untrue. These are my concerns exactly.

[gordyfl]

46. I Would Not Vote For Bernie

If Bernie Sanders took Hillary's positions on the issues, I would not vote for Bernie. A candidate like Bernie Sanders is what myself, and many Americans are really yearning for. The Revolution has begun. Go Bernie!

[rhett o rick]

55. Agree. We supported Obama because we wanted change. We were fooled. I don't think Sen Sanders

is fooling us.

[greenman3610]

48. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

uh huh

[Indepatriot]

65. OH NOES!!!! It's 2000 redux.....

That election was STOLEN by the Bush Crime Family.Period. If Hillary gets the nomination and inspires turnout, no problem, but I don't see that happening. She was yesteryear's candidate in 08' and plays even worse now. If you're really concerned about a Democratic loss in 16' you'd better vote Sanders.

[dpatbrown]

52. Great argument!

Super argument, especially "if she was a man". I think that the Clinton folks, are simply not even "liberal". Sanders is head and shoulders above Clinton. It should be no contest, but compared with the media coverage that Obama got in 07, Sanders is losing out on a lot of support, but it will come. I talk up Sanders all over town, and I just say, go listen to him on the net. That always wins them over. I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders receives Warren's endorsement before Feb 1st. A huge boost to one, and a huge disappointment to another.

[dlwickham]

53. same oligarch bullshit

different day

[MeNMyVolt]

59. You forgot corporatist.

If you listen to the broken record long enough, you'll be able to avoid those mistakes.

[dlwickham]

72. Thank you

[Indepatriot]

60. KAAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOM!

[madokie]

68. I'm a yellow dog democrat so I'll vote for our nominee

in the general but in the primary its Bernie Sanders all the way for me.

I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her to be perfectly honest with you or anyone else for that matter. I agree she would be better than any of the 'CONs though.

[postatomic]

74. If Bernie Sanders were a female, would you support "her" over Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley?

Hey, this is fun!!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

119. That is actually a good exercise

That person would most exemplify Elizabeth Warren.
So...Elizabeth vs. Hillary.
I'll bet Hillary was breathing a big sigh of relief when Warren finally officially decided not to run. Without that gender card to play, I have a feeling many women, and also many forward thinking men, would at least waver on who they would support. I myself would love to see a female President at last, someday. Just like it was a milestone to have the first AA President. Because even if nothing else, it is a symbol, a new zietgiest, and a transformative event in the social consciousness whether the far right baggers like it or not. Just like marijuana legalzation, or gay marriage legalization, once it actually exists it becomes normalized. By that I mean normalized in the minds of conservatives who before that could never imagine it.

I am not trying to insult the intelligence of women Hillary supporters, I realize it is not as simple as that. I am just saying that gender must carry at least some weight with many Democratic voting women. Whether this is PC to say that or not, I think it is a fact. So I'd like to see how much the support would shift if we had had two female front runners. One a staunch advocate of stricter Wall Street regulation, and one beholden to them by massive campaign contributions.

[BeanMusical]

88. Kick and R

[Betty Karlson]

96. Issues, not ovaries.

And no, caring about issues rather than ovaries doesn't make me a bad Democrat.

[EndElectoral]

97. Hate to get into genderism. It's her hawkishness, flip flops, and ties to big money that stop me.

The IWR and continued hawkishness particularly in the Mid East.
Her continual evolving stances on TPP and Keystone.
Her huge coffers from the investment banks.
There is much more, but these issues are stop signs for me. Can't support anyone - male or female - with this baggage.

[turbinetree]

99. That pretty much sums up her record..................................

Thanks K&R



Honk---------------------for a political revolution it is about getting a progressive U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and State and Local legislatures


Bernie 2016

[greiner3]

120. What an editorial

But as an entity that exists only on ads they conveniently left out being on the board of Walmart. But then again too many of their readers would consider that a good thing

[Lil Missy]

126. yes, I would pick Hillary without hesitation.

And, I much prefer picking a winner.