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: My take on Hillary Clinton's motives in breaking with Obama on foreign policy [View all]Skidmore
(37,364 posts)11. Frankly, I think there is the idea out there that
she's walking into the nomination without any questions. I don't like that. It is sucking the air out of the primaries before the nomination process even begins. And with that goes any chance of having a substantive presentation of the platform and policies supported by the base. It is affecting this year's midterm too because, here in Iowa, we are seeing a constant parade of Repbublican figure through the state and no presence of representation from the national Democratic Party. What is resulting is the Republican/Teabagger factions are loud and visible and there is an appearance that the Dems aren't really serious.
I have said it before many times--I will not caucus for her.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 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
My take on Hillary Clinton's motives in breaking with Obama on foreign policy [View all]
karynnj
Aug 2014
OP
She is more big business and big bank, at least she and Bill were in Arkansas
LiberalArkie
Aug 2014
#33
Except her voting record is not on corporations first, more for the consumer.
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#34
Either 1 or 2 she's wrong for the country. My guess more sell out less principle
on point
Aug 2014
#4
It's one and two. And here's three: she's totally shallow on foreign policy, she spent
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#6
She was too young to vote for Goldwater. She campaigned for McCarthy in 1968,
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#36
She campaigned for Rockefeller in 1968. She worked at the Republican National Convention that year.
ieoeja
Aug 2014
#51
She was raised in a GOP home but has campaigned for Democrats since voting age.
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#55
I guess you should take a look at more than the few threads you have admitted to checking
davidpdx
Aug 2014
#59
She has to prove she has bigger balls than any man and by god, given the chance, she will do it.
CBGLuthier
Aug 2014
#10
Who cares if Clinton picks some "moderate liberal"? The person would be a powerless token
TheKentuckian
Aug 2014
#35
The vice Presidency is no springboard to the big chair save via death, 2024 is not even
TheKentuckian
Aug 2014
#38
It's because she's so weak on domestic policy/economics. She *needs* the election to be about
Romulox
Aug 2014
#20
IMO she is a politician and will do/say what is necessary, remember "Landing under fire?"
HereSince1628
Aug 2014
#21