. . . is transparency, so that voters know all potential conflicts of interest and where people really stand on the issues.
If this were really about her opponents wanting to look for things she has said which are incriminating and politically damaging, the New York Times editorial board, which endorsed her candidacy, would not have called for her to release them.
That is all.
I don't know, just ask Bill Richardson & Joe Biden (start at 2 minutes, 15 seconds in)
I have been busy the last 2 days -- did she release them and I missed it? I would hate for that to happen. Can someone update me? If not, I am sure they are forthcoming, because Hillary is an honest candidate.
Also I saw this press release:
Edited to add: Today is my birthday; maybe Sec. Clinton plans to release them today as her birthday gift to me?
I am continuously told she has always been fighting for Black People for the last 20-30 years, so is there a list of the Pro Black/POC legislations she has gotten through? Or written and put up for a vote? I'd like to see for myself what her track record is on fighting for their rights in government.
I am not joking! See the test balloon over in the AA forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/118739916
As if disagreeing with one of many laws your spouse is bound to enforce as part of the job means your opinion is invalid. I suppose that is supposed to be some kind of smear.
Anyway, be prepared for this new meme in the coming days.
The answer is: serious. Since Sanders public mention of me, I have been asked repeatedly whether I think his foreign policy positions and experience are sound. I do.
In my dealings with him, and in analyzing his record in Congress over the past 25 years, I have found that Sanders has taken balanced, realistic positions on many of the most critical foreign policy issues facing the country. In the mold of realists like Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, Sanders voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, while wisely supporting the war against in Afghanistan in 2001 and the intervention in the Balkans in 1990s. And Sanders certainly isnt a foreign policy lightweight: In fact, given his long tenure in the House and Senate, he has more foreign policy experience than Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama did when they were running for office the first time.
I have no doubt that Sanders will be willing to challenge the foreign policy establishment, as Obama did on such issues. Does Sanders have the same amount of foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton? Obviously not. But Bill Clinton had far less foreign policy experience than George H.W. Bush, and Obama had less than John McCainand both presidents had effective foreign policies. If he is elected, I believe Sanders will also be able to attract a competent foreign policy cohort, just as Obama didincluding many of the current Clinton team. With the right partners in placeand, above all, the right principals and instinctsa President Sanders could be just the foreign policy president we need.
This confirms what many DUers have been saying for quite some time. Good judgement can be more important than more experience.
That is all.
via The Intercept:
In terms of what we can expect after the election, anybody that thinks they can predict the nominations, much less the election right now, I would love to talk to them. But I think this is going to continue to be an issue, or it's going to continue to be on the radar screen because of demographics. And to some extent, as people get older, they are going to be more and more reliant on our medicines. I think we've got to continue to demonstrate that there's value in the medicines we bring. Yes, they can be expensive, but disease is a lot more expensive. And emphasize the fact that low-cost generics, which account for over four out of five prescriptions today, represent ultimately the legacy of these investment efforts on our part, and provide the American consumer with tremendous value. So I think you can assume the industry is going to continue to maintain an active dialogue with each of the candidates, and to work across party lines to make sure that the views that ultimately translate into policy -- and that's what we've really got to be focused on -- remain balanced and factual over time.
So I don't think there's -- while I think we are and should be concerned about the rhetoric, I think the facts of the underlying story remain very strong.
From The Intercept:
Much more at:
Which candidate do you think would be more beholden to the industry? Which candidate do you know has no financial ties to the industry?
Which candidate will you choose in the primary process?
Lately on DU this image has been circulating:
I thought Sanders and O'Malley supporters were registered Democrats. Naturally then, the image confuses me. If you don't want our votes in the general election could you please make that clear so that we're all on the same page about what this image is saying? I'd like to see a credible explanation for why this is not dismissing O'Malley and Sanders supporters as members of the Democratic party. It certainly seems to be implying that. Man
ny thanks in advance.