Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: To DEFEAT The Tea Party, The LEFT Needs BOLDER LEADER Than Hillary [View all]cui bono
(19,926 posts)65. She is hardly a liberal or on the left.
And when I say center-right I'm taking into account how far to the right the entire political spectrum has moved. What was once left is now considered center-left, what was once the extreme right is now just vanilla-right.
H.Clinton voted for the Iraq war, for one thing. Here's more:
Published on Thursday, June 5, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times
Hillary Clinton Hardly a Liberal Icon
by John Nichols
Hillary Clinton's status as a liberal icon has always been based on leaps of logic, as opposed to her record.
As the first lady, she actively supported Bill Clinton's anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-human rights trade policies, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to permanent most favored nation trading status for China.
She defended the Clinton administration's draconian welfare reform schemes, which her old allies at the Children's Defense Fund correctly identified as the shredding of the social safety net for America's poorest children.
And she took the lead in drafting a bureaucratic health care reform plan that rejected the sensible single-payer model in favor of a scheme to funnel federal money into the pockets of some of the worst players in the for-profit health care industry.
At a time when Democrats like U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California were battling the corporate-sponsored free trade agenda; when Nydia M. Velzquez, D-N.Y., and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., were battling to defend the interests of low-income families; and when Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., were championing real health care reform, Hillary Clinton always refused to ask the tough questions, take the tough stands or abandon the risk-averse course set by the Clinton administration.
When Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, there was a brief flurry of hopeful speculation that she would emerge as the liberal her most ardent supporters - and her silly right-wing critics - believed her to be. But, in the Senate, Clinton has generally served as an uninspired, if competent, moderate.
With other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has stood up to some of the worst of President Bush's judicial nominees, and like the vast majority of Senate Democrats she has voted against the worst elements of the Bush economic agenda.
But no one is going to confuse Hillary Clinton, who has cozied up to the conservative, corporation-funded Democratic Leadership Council, with a progressive reformer. She remains the conventional inside-the-Beltway pol who angrily shouted, "Russ, live in the real world," after U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., tried to explain why Democrats should embrace campaign finance reforms he had proposed.
<snip>
"I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she declared.
Twenty-three more skeptical senators chose not to take the president at his word. Among them were Bob Graham, D-Fla., who then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Clinton was praising the president's pronouncements, the skeptics voted "no."
more...
https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-07.htm
Hillary Clinton Hardly a Liberal Icon
by John Nichols
Hillary Clinton's status as a liberal icon has always been based on leaps of logic, as opposed to her record.
As the first lady, she actively supported Bill Clinton's anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-human rights trade policies, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to permanent most favored nation trading status for China.
She defended the Clinton administration's draconian welfare reform schemes, which her old allies at the Children's Defense Fund correctly identified as the shredding of the social safety net for America's poorest children.
And she took the lead in drafting a bureaucratic health care reform plan that rejected the sensible single-payer model in favor of a scheme to funnel federal money into the pockets of some of the worst players in the for-profit health care industry.
At a time when Democrats like U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California were battling the corporate-sponsored free trade agenda; when Nydia M. Velzquez, D-N.Y., and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., were battling to defend the interests of low-income families; and when Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., were championing real health care reform, Hillary Clinton always refused to ask the tough questions, take the tough stands or abandon the risk-averse course set by the Clinton administration.
When Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, there was a brief flurry of hopeful speculation that she would emerge as the liberal her most ardent supporters - and her silly right-wing critics - believed her to be. But, in the Senate, Clinton has generally served as an uninspired, if competent, moderate.
With other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has stood up to some of the worst of President Bush's judicial nominees, and like the vast majority of Senate Democrats she has voted against the worst elements of the Bush economic agenda.
But no one is going to confuse Hillary Clinton, who has cozied up to the conservative, corporation-funded Democratic Leadership Council, with a progressive reformer. She remains the conventional inside-the-Beltway pol who angrily shouted, "Russ, live in the real world," after U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., tried to explain why Democrats should embrace campaign finance reforms he had proposed.
<snip>
"I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she declared.
Twenty-three more skeptical senators chose not to take the president at his word. Among them were Bob Graham, D-Fla., who then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Clinton was praising the president's pronouncements, the skeptics voted "no."
more...
https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-07.htm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
She's not my ideal candidate, but she would destroy any Teabagger they threw against her,
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#3
lol I see David Koch of Koch Industries is on the board along with other insane folks.
DURHAM D
Oct 2013
#17
To get a true progressive agenda, probably true. But to defeat the Tea Party, No.
Tom Rinaldo
Oct 2013
#6
I think Hillary would govern center-center based on the momentum the left has now.
busterbrown
Oct 2013
#7
the democrats' "middle"has moved so farright it is barely recognizeable sometimes nt
msongs
Oct 2013
#12
Yes, it is definitely time to move away from the “New Democrat”/Third Way-style of governing.
Zorra
Oct 2013
#15
So we are to continue following the Right-wing ever farther to the Right, till we go over the cliff?
RC
Oct 2013
#84
We just keep following the ever Right ward march of the Democrats till we all go over the cliff too?
RC
Oct 2013
#90
I think she's too enamored of the Washington cocktail party scene to be effective
tularetom
Oct 2013
#21
As I recall Sally Quinn totally trashed her for NOT being part of the cocktail crowd.
DURHAM D
Oct 2013
#96
K & R, exactly, the Tea Party needs to go, the GOP leadership is too weak to help
Thinkingabout
Oct 2013
#26
Hillary is hardly center right. If you want to beat her fine but don't make stuff up
coldmountain
Oct 2013
#61
Excellent recording of true facts. Thank you for this. I'm tired of hearing....
northoftheborder
Oct 2013
#63
While all that may be true, it doesn't put her on the left or make her a liberal.
cui bono
Oct 2013
#67
“The fact that she makes 2016 uninteresting makes that attractive,” said Markos Moulitsas
coldmountain
Oct 2013
#72
That says keeping another Bush/Cheney or even worse out of the White House
coldmountain
Oct 2013
#75
That's an entirely different issue than whether or not Hillary is a liberal or left. n/t
cui bono
Oct 2013
#85
Liberal is in the eye of the beholder. Just electing a Democratic woman is liberal at this point
coldmountain
Oct 2013
#95
I don't doubt her boldness in defeating the Tea Party - Can we get beyond just defeating the crazies
Douglas Carpenter
Oct 2013
#31
The Tea Party has already defeated itself, plus half their old white guys will be dead by 2016.
Coyotl
Oct 2013
#33
At this point, defeating the Tea Party may require little more than a candidate with a pulse. n/t
Silent3
Oct 2013
#43
I agree. If ever there was a woman who could stand her own against any politician, it's Hillary.
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2013
#53
No doubt about it. And the thing is, the Right is afraid of her, that's why they're trying
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2013
#74
Hillary would never have wasted time trying to appease these teabagging bastards
Skittles
Oct 2013
#76