2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill Clinton Is A Political Liability: In A Race Against Bernie Sanders, His Neoliberal Legacy Could
Bill Clinton is a political liability: In a race against Bernie Sanders, his neoliberal legacy could be toxicWhile he's done much to reform his image over the past several years, Bill Clinton still comes with many red flags
Conor Lynch - Salon
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 02:57 AM PST
<snip>
On Monday, former President Bill Clinton hit the campaign trail in New Hampshire, after remaining largely on the sidelines since Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy back in April. His first solo speech, however, was not the great success Hillary has surely hoped for. As Michael Sainato describes in the New York Observer:
Responding in typical fashion to the news that Bill would be hitting the campaign trail, Donald Trump wrote on Twitter: “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!”
Hillary should have other concerns, however, about unleashing Bill. While he does have one of the highest favorability ratings among living presidents, and is one the most charming politicians in existence, he also did a lot more to advance a neoliberal and even right-wing agenda during his time in office than most Democrats or liberals like to remember. Indeed, Clinton had a great talent for providing lip service to the political left while delivering to the political right.
The right-wing’s hatred of Bill Clinton has always been rather ironic, considering he was more conservative than liberal, and provided the American right with some of the most reactionary legislation. As Christopher Hitchens wrote in his anti-Clinton polemic, “No One Left to Lie To,” Clinton signed “legislation that was more hasty, callous, short-term and ill considered than anything the Republicans could have hoped to carry on their own.”
The most notorious element of Bill’s reactionary legacy — especially among progressives — is his administration’s close ties to Wall Street, including a deregulatory agenda that no doubt contributed to the financial crisis and the continuing problem of too-big-to-fail financial institutions. In 1999, Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act into law, which repealed the Glass Steagall Act, allowing commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies to merge into massive financial institutions, which had been banned since the 1930s. Notably, this gave Citigroup — which had formed one year earlier in a merger between Citicorp (commercial banking) and Travelers Group (Insurance), after being provided a temporary waiver from the Federal Reserve — permanency. One of the foremost advocates of this legislation, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (who was chairman of Goldman Sachs before joining the Clinton administration), would go on to work for Citigroup after concluding his public service, and receive more than $100 million in compensation.
The administration’s refusal to regulate the derivative market may be an even more notorious blunder, as we all know what became of unregulated derivatives.
Clinton also ardently supported and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which provided corporations with an abundance of cheap labor and new investment protections, while destroying manufacturing jobs, suppressing real wages, and undermining collective bargaining power. And then there is welfare reform, or the Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunity Act (a title that would suit Paul Ryan’s dream legislation). This “reform” ended federal entitlements and instead handed federal money over to the states for them to implement their own welfare models, which ended up creating a system rife with racial bias. (This is unsurprising, considering the fight for welfare reform was always based on the notion that African-Americans — e.g., “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” — were abusing the system.)
Hillary was a strong supporter of this reform.
Outside of economic issues, the Clinton administration wasn’t much better...
<snip>
More: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/07/bill_clinton_is_a_political_liability_in_a_race_against_bernie_sanders_his_neoliberal_legacy_could_be_toxic/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wilms
(26,795 posts)"Enough is enough!"
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I have a really funny jpg "Read my lips, NO more Bush" but the bailiff whacked my peepee for posting it last time.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Which "people" are you thinking of?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)I agree.
We have changed. It is not apparent the Clintons have.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)So that we had no opportunity to discuss the effects of the last Clinton administration?
Clinton had an ugly legacy, once it came to fruition: NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Extrajudiciary Rendition, repeal of Glass-Steagall...
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)as much as possible. That included having few debates (they felt it wouldn't hurt Clinton because she is well known), and a complicit public media that would put the level of "ignore" into hyperdrive.
We're once again being played. They game is being (and has been) rigged for establishment insiders who are dedicated to do the bidding of Wall St., and Corporate masters for greed and personal gain.
The poor and suffering are invisible to these folks. Oh, they will talk about them during a campaign as if they really "care"...but we all know, they don't.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)It is, in fact, one of the reasons why Clinton will be unelectable in the GE. But camp Weathervane doesn't want to hear or see that truth. They have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to the lessons of 2014.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)for anyone without blinders on to see. Bernie will be 45.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Because talking about them should obscure the issue of the TPP.
I guess we're allowed to talk about only what doesn't make the corporate elites squeamish.
Beheadings? Fine!
The TPP? No, no, no! Cut the feed, get that madman off the air!
Spoiler Alert!*
*We didn't get our share, Ned Beatty lied. I'm shocked!
Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.
Howard Beale: Why me?
Arthur Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.
Howard Beale: I have seen the face of God.
Arthur Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.
Howard had it right, in the beginning.
<snip> Howard Beale: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!' <end snip>
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes
thereismore
(13,326 posts)since his last days as President, people see the consequences of his policies, and his persona does not stand in the way anymore.
I think the Clintons are of the past, and people will not go for them again.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...for Bernie. I'm hearing this so much, and with such open disgust. Anyone who thinks the anti-Clinton sentiment on DU is bad, needs to speak to Independents and Republicans who don't like her.
And they're not shy. I never bring up Clinton, but when they do, they are passionate about not wanting another Clinton in the White House.
As much as the media has attempted to shadow this fact, this is a change election.
People are so fed up. I've spent a fair amount of time trying to console Republicans when I make these calls.
Happy to listen. Some of these Republicans will be caucusing for Bernie in Iowa.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)and I've heard it at work.
I find it interesting how much my female neighbors and co-workers dislike her, once they get started talking about her. The dislike is STRONG.
And thus, despite what the DNC, DWS, the MSM and Entrenched Establishment are saying...I feel that if these "powers" rig it for her, some how, in the Primary...she will lose to anyone in the General. The uproar against her will be ugly.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)
Gmak
(88 posts)I have phone banked in Iowa, as well, and gone door-to-door for signatures to get Bernie on the ballet in Illinois, and the hatred for Hillary among Independents and Republicans is visceral. Her candidacy will cause a much bigger turnout just to see her go down to defeat. I got a bunch of senior citizens to sign the petition to get Bernie on the ballot just by stating he was running against Hillary. An acquaintance, who is a lifelong R says she is very impressed with Bernie and mainly looked into him because he could keep Hillary out of office. Ask yourself why Bernie beats Trump by much larger margins than Hillary does in polls.
Why do you think 45% call themselves independent? A lot of those used to be Democrats, but some left in disgust after the Clinton years. I called myself an Independent for several decades, tho always voted Democratic, but when 2000 brought us an appointed, not elected president, I made the choice to get involved on the D side, with its warts and all, but I can never forget nor forgive the Clintons for the damage they did to the economy through their bowing to Wall Street nor the lives damaged and destroyed due to the 'welfare reform'. And, don't ever try to convince me that Hillary wasn't complicit in all of it. Her overweening ambition wouldn't have had it any other way. Yes, a lot of us had prosperity during their tenure, but at what cost? It was all on the credit card and led directly to the mess we are in now.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)43 percent of Iowans are Independents. And they aren't Independents because they don't care about politics. They are largely disaffected and ticked off with politics in general.
Many Independents will attend our Iowa caucuses. Some will caucus for Republicans and some will caucus for Democrats.
I doubt very few will be caucusing for Hillary.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)to either dilute Sanders' message or to make sure that an establishment candidate won one way or the other
Clinton's cool and popular--but again the non-wonks will just see him as being dragged in, and many of his fans just don't want to put him through another 8 years of being screamed at by lunatics with subpoena power
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Would want Bill Clinton to campaign for him.If coarse he will.
Baitball Blogger
(52,288 posts)That's got to leave a mark.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I do not want then back in the White House...especially him.
The more I've learned, the more disgusted I am with them.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Bill Clinton is the most positively viewed of all ex-Presidents, with a 64% approval.
Basically the only people who don't like him are die-hard Republicans and the fringe left. (You know - the people who make common cause with each other against actual Democrats.)
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Hell no.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I am against unnecessary war and I want an end to Wall Street having it's way over our political system. I like to think i have a fairly centrist position, one shared by an overwhelming majority of our citizenry.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)What "unnecessary war" did President Clinton get us into, exactly?
About the only war he got us into (for 3 weeks) was to stop the so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo Muslims, through starvation and forced marches. Here are a few pictures:
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I knew this prior to that war. I further knew prior to that war that Bush wanted that war to happen. I did not want that war to happen, i knew it was about greed, not about safety for our citizens. Those who voted to allow Bush to go to war did so knowingly, that makes them accessories in the court of world opinion. Hillary Clinton to me represents an expansion of needless spending to our overbloated M.I.C. and will likely provide us with further war in the Middle East.
I am on a smart phone, if you are so darned hip to photos of the ugliness of our recent wars PLEASE google depleted uranium, Bosnia; Iraq; Afghanistan; YouTube. Are you revolted by what you see there? Do you support what was done in OUR name by OUR government to these victims? These are War Crimes as outlined by the Geneva Conventions-WE DID THAT!
I do not support unnecessary war nor do i wish to see the mightiest military this planet has ever witnessed be under the control of someone who does.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Remember that?
So blaming him for Bush's war, is rather strange.
Oh, and depleted uranium (virtually non-radioactive U238) is really no more toxic than lead is. (Of course like all heavy metals, neither is particularly healthy, especially if aerosolized.)
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
chknltl
(10,558 posts)For any fellow DUers who may be ignorant of depleted uranium munitions, our use of them by Presidents going back to and including President Bill Clinton, the effects our use of this WMD has had and continues to have where it was used, please google it. The data is easily available and our own government now openly treats for it among our veterans.
That said, I see what you do here, you seek to bait me as opposed to discuss with me. I do not support unnecessary wars. Most of the citizenry do not support unnecessary wars. In this I am not fringe anything, nor are they.
I do not support an expansion of our bloated Military Industrial Complex. Most Americans don't either. We are not fringe for being this way at this time.
Like most people, I detest being lumped into someone's propagandized scheme. (eg: contrary to propagandists versions, most refugees from ISIS are not terrorists). Please stop calling me a fringer for my beliefs
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And then cite as the only example of an unnecessary war that President Clinton got us into... Bush's invasion of Iraq.
What you call "baiting", I call "questioning the logic of your arguments".
Well, at least the good news is that at least you're not trying to blame Obama for Bush's war. Thank heaven for small favors.
In terms of U238, no one says heavy metals are good for you. But there is absolutely no evidence in peer-reviewed journals that Uranium is somehow more toxic than Lead. Googling a bunch of vaxer/911-truther/DU-scare-monger blogs isn't actual science, let me remind you. Actual Uranium poisoning has been studied extensively, and the wild assertions of these conspiracy blogs are utterly inconsistent with them.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Again with the lead vs depleted uranium toxicity comparisons! Lead too is poisonous but our use of lead is not the strongly suspected cause of the serious birth defects and malformations arising in the areas where we used depleted uranium munitions.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26703-iraqi-doctors-call-depleted-uranium-use-genocide
Furthermore, as of a few short years ago my Veterans Benefits Guide began listing Depleted Uranium poisoning as one of the sicknesses that is being treated by VA doctors. I see nowhere in that guide any mention of lead poisoning. Here is something for fellow DUers in need of a depleted uranium primer:
"Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.
I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.
The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against." President Clinton http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/08/1998-08-20-president-address-to-the-nation.html
Truly you must be sick of senseless bombings by now! What came of this particular one? No 'terrorists' were hit and worse the facilities targeted and destroyed had nothing to do with terrorism in any way shape or form! They did kill a poor old night watchman and cost some 300 non-terrorists their jobs! Surely all 300 of these soles understood our governments right to bomb their factory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)
Acts like that make war unnecessary how? Quite the contrary, they piss folks off at us!
President Clinton used both cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions during the Bosnia/Herzegovina war. Oh wait a minute, maybe cluster bombs are no more harmful than lead as well. My opinion is that war must be a last resort and if carried out must not be done under the greedy whims of the military industrial complex. I am NOT buying it that the Clintons are eager to ignore their buds in the M.I.C.! No more senseless bombings, no more use of WMDs and no more unnecessary wars please. I know I am pushing it but I would dearly love to see some real accountability, put all of our wars, how and why they were waged before an international tribunal with full on media coverage...cockroaches wouldn't like it much but the citizenry deserve such enlightenment.
Now let us get back to Depleted Uranium poisoning. I recall when big tobacco used arguments that there were no peer reviewed proofs that smoking causes cancer. Fortunately big tobacco back then did not have the same resources they have today otherwise we would still be having that 'debate'. The radioactive dust from our use of depleted uranium munitions litters the battlefields of Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of it has entered the groundwater. It contaminates through being breathed in, eaten or drank. Once inside the body, each particle contributes it's weak little pulse of radioactivity to the tissues it is in contact with. Over time, even that weak little pulse can wreak havoc with that tissue because the affect is cumulative. http://www.peacehost.net/PacifistNation/CaldicottAndDU.htm
Just as Big Oil's scientists will tell me that global climate change is a myth I have little doubt your 'peer reviewed studies' tell us that these cumulative affects are harmless. Here is a nice article about your World Health Organization's peer reviewed study, (in case that was the one you rely on) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium
Here is an informative video from Iraq, you don't suppose these victims have any problems with the good ol USA do you? :https://www.rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/
So here we are, you and I, two DUers discussing wars. I support peace, I support a cessation to needless war/warmongering, I want fair hearings into why we have gone to war and how we have waged those wars going back to the Clinton era. I suspect those who profit from any of the above would be against me in this. Here is a thought: If one were to send a chum a little souvenir pebble from Ayers Rock, I suspect few outside of Australia would take issue with this. Perhaps an enterprising capitalist might find a way to mass market Iraqi sand, I dunno, maybe turn it into sculptures, maybe use it to make fancy jewelry. Of course this entrepreneur would have to believe that sand to be perfectly safe, which rules me out of picture, but you otoh..... Probably be easy-peasy getting the raw sand from Iraq/Afghanistan imported, it's just sand for Pete's sake. Yeah, you don't even have to thank me for the 'hot' tip, it's my pleasure.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But again, what you reference instead is:
1) "truthout", which is basically an negative nationalist blog.
2) A laughable pseudo-science article from "peacehost", which talks about the "radioactivity" of the nearly non-radioactive U238.
3) One Dr. Keith Bavistock, who talks up his suspicions that he thinks the World Health Organization is apparently shilling for the DoD, in a paper. Why they would do that, he doesn't really explain.
And then a bunch of stuff attacking Clinton on entirely unrelated stuff.
Again, toxicity of DU is well known. There have been extensive studies of it, injected into various species of test animals, and the exact kind of damage it does is well known. (No, it isn't radioactive, and will kill you before it causes nerve damage - but like most heavy metals, it is hell on mammalian kidneys.)
Can I point out that until recently (2000), DU was used in dental enamels?
Believe it or not, there were literal tons of all sorts of toxic chemicals unleashed during the gulf war. Why people have latched on to DU as being abnormally toxic in relation to all other studies, is beyond me.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
/ Lead, unlike Uranium, directly affects the human nervous system, making us stupider and more prone to violence. Its toxicity is far in excess of Uranium.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)....supporters of big tobacco once did and climate change deniers still do. Furthermore instead of adressing
your assertion that we are on the fringe you chose to pick a fight with the offended instead. I could just as easily scoff at anything you might put up....what good is that when the harm caused is very real. I've no use for folks who side with big business or big government when it is obvious they are at fault for the harm caused to innocent victims. You have chosen your side, i will waste no further time with you. Have a nice day.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)You lack credibility with non-conspiracy theorists, and the reality based community lacks credibility with those who are.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
floriduck
(2,262 posts)But look at his competition. GWBush would make anyone a like able guy.
lark
(26,068 posts)They love his straightforward way of making complicated issues simple, they love how he relates to them. They remember fondly their prosperity during his administration. Yes, he signed NAFTA, but he also signed FMLA which has been such a job saver for so many. I doubt Bernie underestimates him and neither should we.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Two of the greatest rock stars in the Democratic Party. It's like they haven't seen how popular the Big Dog is. Sanders campaign itself stalled once he and his supporters stopped running for things and started running against everything. That stall is why we are seeing the ramped up verbiage.
Go Clinton and Go Republicans who can't keep their mind out of his pants. Clinton wins every time it happens and the republican brand is damaged even further. Thanks for promoting this WillyT. We should keep highlighting people writing things like this in our efforts to elect Clinton.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Bill, neolib, alleged abuse of women.
Well played!
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Been there, done that.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Bill is about energizing her supporters and waking the undecideds up out of their slumber.
George II
(67,782 posts)....were beaming, not "unimpressed" or "lethargic".
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)What is this thread, a Bernie burn? 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...for the $15,000,000,000 (that's $15 BILLION) lawsuit by TransCanada that will be decided by CORPORATE ARBITRATORS NOT COURTS, thanks to wonderful fucking "free trade" deal HE PUSHED THROUGH, known as NAFTA.
Thanks a lot President CLINTON, you's the fucking bestest.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Why would she think it would be an advantage for him to help her? I don't get it. And personally, I think it will burn her in the long run.
Things ran fairly good under Bill's helm, but years later we found out he made a lot of mistakes. NAFTA was a big one. It was followed up by a huge whooshing sound of jobs leaving this country. Both combined, have a huge amount of baggage.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...that her husband is doing more harm that good.
She's doing this in IA and NH because the gap is closing and she's staring down the barrel of a very tight Iowa race. She had to do something.
Bernie has incredible momentum and crowds in Iowa. Clinton (neither of them) do not.
If Bernie continues this momentum in Iowa, especially going into the final two weeks--where anything can and does happen--then this will be a very, very tight Iowa race. In the end, it will depend on who gets their supporters to the caucuses.
Both teams have comparable ground games. Both have 26 offices, precinct captains at each of the 1650+ Iowa caucus sites and thousands of volunteers.
24 days and counting...
Martin Eden
(15,579 posts)As time slips by, attitudes towards ex-presidents tend to soften. GW certainly has a higher favorability rating than when he left office. Bill Clinton will certainly be remembered by some for the witch hunt scandals and impeachment, but swing voters will generally remember the economy flourished during his turn and he left office with a budget surplus.
I thought Bill was great at the 2012 Democratic convention when he destroyed Paul Ryan's alleged budget wizardry by replying to a question as to how he was able to balance the budget; the simple answer: "arithmetic."
And how, exactly, will the Republicans attack the Clintons on deregulation & trade when Rethugs are more extreme on those issues?
No, I don't think Bill is the problem.
Hillary's own high negatives hurt her electability, as does the lack of enthusiasm she generates on the left among young voters and others who are totally fed up with the status quo.
Nevertheless, I think both Hillary and Bernie would defeat whover the Rethugs nominate.
The biggest key to actually getting things accomplished is a candidate who generates enthusiasm for a massive voter turnout that will also help elect Democrats in the downticket races.
That candidate is Bernie Sanders.
andrewv1
(168 posts)The baggage that she will carry with her into the GE is inconceivable.
And I'm not talking especially about her email or foundation scandals or Wall St. ties either.
What eventually will come out is more information about her involvement in overthrowing Democratically Elected Governments in Ukraine and Honduras. Or more about how she created ISIS, Or somebody revisit her earlier statements about bombing Iran....
And there's also her continuing comments about Regime Change or No Fly Zones.
And of course, her flip-flopping
As a result, I don't think Progressives are going to sit around getting excited about voting for Hillary while her buddies like "Neocon Leon" Panetta are plotting new ways to make money for the Defense Industry.
We will certainly know if HRC becomes the nominee by March.
And if that occurs, we might look for a progressive third-party to emerge to start registering to get on the ballot in all 50 states at that time.
So far fetched?
We can also say that Trump is "50/50" to go that way also.
At that point if it happens, I would not say a Democrat or a Republican would be "a shoe in" to get into the White House.
Martin Eden
(15,579 posts)I'd bet on Hillary against Trump or Cruz. I think Rubio might have the best chance to beat the Dem nominee.
andrewv1
(168 posts)& One more thing...
The Clinton supporters on DU for the most part seem like good folks.
The one thing that surprises me though is how they are in lockstep & don't question anything in regards to their candidate.
It's kinda like the personality traits of conservatives, but then again HRC is basically a conservative.
Martin Eden
(15,579 posts)I've gotten some arguments from hillary supporters that are devoid of sense, but sometimes that's required to not see a candidate's biggest flaws.
Hillary is basically conservative in that she is very much a status quo Washington politician who will not seriously challenge the oligarchy, but she is not "conservative" as defined by today's batguano crazy Republican Party.
DFW
(60,139 posts)When the campaign starts, and the Republican candidate will have to go out and show what he's got, their emperor will be seen to have only the clothes he really has, i.e.none.
And what's with all the Republicanese on DU all of a sudden? "Shoe-in?" I must have seen this on a few dozen posts by now. Either there are a few Republican shills here trying to make us look ridiculous, or some of us must be following a few right wing web sites too closely.
A shoe is what goes on your foot. A shoo-in is a cinch to win an election.
andrewv1
(168 posts)My wife of 35 years makes it her number one pastime to correct my horrible language habits....God knows because I'm so bad, I can't watch old Archie Bunker clips!
As for Hillary, go back & look at her campaigning last year for Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky & you'll get scared really quickly.
McConnell would of lost, except her & Bill brought in their Republican Lite act & turned potential Democratic voters off there.
You certainly are better @ English than I am, but you need to be a little more perceptive about Clinton;
She will lose the White House in a landslide & there will be no chance to regain the Senate or the House.
And as I said earlier the Democratic Party is finding a way to destroy itself....
Outside of Sanders, I have no problem voting for another Democrat from Warren to Gore to Biden or others, but I refuse to vote for the Cancer within itself that is Hillary Clinton.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How cozy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and he appears not to be the only one. We know Bill gave a very important speech for Obama, explained so as everyone understood. Yes, Bill is great on the campaign trail, he will be there for Hillary, there will be more post like this and Bill will still be there. He will be there through the GE also still promoting Hillary.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)That was a doozy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)I enjoy the levity.
iandhr
(6,852 posts) SHRED
(28,136 posts)
appalachiablue
(43,996 posts)like the reality of his policies and what he stands for. Much isn't pretty, especially for working Americans who've seen the rapid decline of their standard of living. To say the least.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)appalachiablue
(43,996 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The administration’s refusal to regulate the derivative market may be an even more notorious blunder, as we all know what became of unregulated derivatives.
And Hillary doesn't think Glass-Stegall should be reinstated!!!
She's history.
underpants
(196,363 posts)I see your points but on the grand scale Bill locks up 5-10% of the vote by himself.
My 2 cents.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I hate the results of NAFTA. We are still suffering from the results of these bad trade deals.
We are also suffering from the results of the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Telecommunications Act.
We are supposed to ignore the long term destructiveness of these laws? Sorry, I cannot do that.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Is a bad day for Bernie. Despite the Rs attempts to end his Presidency we had 8 years of peace and prosperity. It wasn't perfect but with Bernies statement that no economic growth would be acceptable, I just can't feel the Bern
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)
RandySF
(83,906 posts)She might not be all that much help to Bernie.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Let's see how it's received at Salon.
Edit: People have long memories, it seems.
George II
(67,782 posts)women behind him. Some were looking a little weary toward the end of the 28 minutes speech, but they sure looked interested in what he had to say.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)
Historic NY
(39,999 posts)has a 60% favorability according to Gallop.