General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo the Hillary hostile -- name the issue YOUR candidate supports...
In the past few days there's been a surprising amount of animus posted about the prospect that Hillary Clinton might run again in 2016, most of it focused on on her being a "DLC shill" or supporting the Iraq invasion or some other unacceptable policy. I get the impression that a lot of this comes from progressive feeling that, once again, we'll end up with a mainstream candidate instead of a liberal true believer. My question is: who is an acceptable progressive candidate, and how do you know? What is the issue that separates an Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown from Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, and how certain are you that your preferred candidate sees the issue the way you do?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...name your candidate and what they're doing to organize some kind of campaign. The nomination is not annointed, I would love to see a robust and competitive Democratic Presidential primary in 2016, but if there's gonna be that kind of a challenge, the person doing the challenging better emerge and soon. Not pipe dreams...I'm talking about someone making the legitimate steps of fundraising and setting up an organization that could create that challenge. If said candidate is going to have a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, Hillary or no, they will need to raise a lot of money and start doing it soon so they can establish a "ground game" in the early primary states...
hlthe2b
(102,197 posts)disappointed. First, they will have little chance of winning the primary, much less the general. Second, as we have seen, moving from the campaign trail to the WH (or even the punditry circle as we've seen with some, including Howard Dean) can and does move them to the center.
Hillary Clinton is not my perfect choice, but she is a very very good choice, IMO. Will she break my heart at times, as Obama has? Undoubtedly. But, the alternative on the "right" is so unfathomable that I really hope Dems will rally behind our best (and most electable) candidate.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)I will support her for president of the united states, and keep up criticism where it is needed.
Not criticizing Obama and supporting everything he does, and fighting other dems, damaged this party.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)hlthe2b
(102,197 posts)damaged this party"....
I totally agree.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)Wait 'til Hilary is President. I've already been banned from the Hilary forum for a single, mildly critical comment.
hlthe2b
(102,197 posts)That said, both the Hillary Group (not forum) and the Barack Obama Group (BOG) are safe haven groups for supporters (respectivelly) only... So, criticism has to be confined to the Forums (GD and Politics 2013, as well as LBN and Good Reads)
on point
(2,506 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will not vote for the neoliberal offering. I will vote my conscience...assuming I even vote in the national election.
Many of us are simply done
mick063
(2,424 posts)Since Iowa and New Hampshire will decide this, I'm simply waiting.
It really doesn't matter who I work for.
All I know is Hillary is bad and I run from her. There has been ample references on DU why she is not acceptable. Perhaps those that habitually "trash threads", are missing out on why.
I will not do your due diligence for you.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I have spent hours and hours mulling over this issue because I have this deep seeded thought about always voting. However, I find myself in total agreement with you. Obama was never my first choice NOR was Hillary who I always saw as DLC.
While I think Obama is truly a loving caring man, and I've tried hard to understand why he's made so many of the decisions he's made, some of them have really rocked me off my feet.
Given how Repukes have reacted and tried to ruin him in many ways, I see the same thing happening if Hillary were to be elected. I've been willing to bend and lean to the right, but it's gone beyond what I'm able to do anymore.
Yes, many of us are simply done.
matthews
(497 posts)It's funny the crap I have had to take from some of my smart ass brothers and friends because I walked the campaign trail all over hell the first time Obama ran. Of course the fact that I voted for him in the second election just gives them added ammo. There are days when I swear if I hear one more "I told you so" I might just become a front page headline myself. Most of the hard-line old timer Dems that I know are 'done' as well. They don't like Hillary Clinton and they don't know what they're going to do. I suspect a few of them will sit this one out like they did in '12. The common complaint is that they're not going to keep rewarding people with their votes and contributions and then having them turn on them the minute they get elected.
I live in a red state that that splits their votes. Obama got 1 electoral vote in 2008 (first time the vote was ever split). In 2012, he could't come anywhere close to capturing that one vote. Not even close. And the way sentiment seems to be running now, no Democrat will ever do it again.
Omaha ended up with a Republican mayor because people are so fed up. That absolutely floored me. I could NOT see that coming. (I voted for the Dem, even though I knew he was a feckless bastid, but I thought that maybe he'd learned his lesson since he won a narrow recall vote.) But the people here are so fed up with Democrats that not only did they elect a Republican, it was a WOMAN!
**
Jean Stothert wins by wide margin to become Omaha's first woman mayor
Stothert made history Tuesday as the first woman elected as Omaha mayor. She trounced Suttle, earning 57 percent of the vote. She did it, in large part, by racking up votes in western Omaha. However, she also won the traditional Democratic-bastion of South Omaha and other Democratic neighborhoods such as Florence and Benson.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130514/NEWS/130519843
***
I will never vote FOR a Republican as long as I live, but I won't vote for the Democrat if it's another DLC Third Wayer running either.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I'm not sure I'm ready to give up altogether. I may look into alternative options to what we have now if the democratic party cannot produce more liberal candadites.
treestar
(82,383 posts)any progress towards a more progressive state.
You are done with what? Politics? LOL, then those you don't agree with get free reign.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Realize I have had this conversation where I live, and people are either giving up on voting altogether, I'll only vote local elections...where they feel elections are not a joke...or simply vote their conscience. They are done with the...but if you vote this way it's backwards.
The blame is on both Parties.
Oh before you say it...I follow this shit closely, it's one of my beats...and two of my neighbors stopped watching news a while ago.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Backwards is having a GOP Congress passing anti-gay legislation.
For those of us that are still second class citizens, while the Dems are not perfect, they are 1,000,000 times better than the alternative.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Vote in fundamental national security policy, where there is zero light between them...I see no difference...so sorry if I will vote my values any longer, and lesser of two evils is not it.
Mind you, I live in a deep blue state where Decline to state is the fastest group of registered voters.
And I mean...my rep
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Gay rights are of no importance to you?
Environmental issues are of no concern?
Women's issues are of no concern?
If you can't see that there IS a difference - a HUGE difference still.
Funny that other's rights are of no concern.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You have no gay rights, no labor rights, no rights to organize, no women rights... The list is very long
Those codgy old men who wrote the Bill of Rights understood that. The rights in the Bill of Rights are fundamental to all others.
And no, my rep voted to defund Obamacare and voted against the Amash ammendment. His predecessor woud have done the same exact thing. So no, there is no difference. Coming June 2014, I will vote my conscience. Given the California primary system if two conservatives make it to the general I am writing in my conscience, assuming I even bother voting for Congress.
Come the 2016 primaries for POTUS, I will again vote my conscience, given the primary has been decided, November again, I will vote my conscience, assuming I even bother with that. Elections are an illusion any longer.
I guarantee you, I will not vote for a Well known neoliberal tool.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And you are wrong.
Having equal rights for gays, regardless of privacy issues, will make a HUGE difference in the day to day life of LGBT's and their families.
I am concerned about privacy. But it is not the be all, end all issue.
It is funny - when gays were upset about the treatment from Obama back in 2008/09, we were told to sit down and shut up. Now, that YOUR rights MAY be affected (when gay rights WERE and still are), that is the breaking point.
If you, and all others so upset about the NSA really gave a damn about rights, you would have had the same attitude 6 years ago.
But all this histrionics about the NSA strikes me as very, very self-serving - now that you think it affects YOU, rights are an issue.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)including SCOTUS decisions.
You might think the Ds are best, well the Ds are in the process (it occurs every 75 years or so in US History) of becoming the Party of business. The old coalition is shattered.
And you think it is short sighted. Do me a favor and read Roe... you will see PRIVACY and the right to it, was AT THE CENTER of the decision.
As they say, I did not leave the party, the party left me. And increasingly what we need is a good ol' fashioned Granger rebellion. For that, I recommend a few history books.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Because I guarantee that a President Paul will take this country backwards decades.
And likely make full equality for LGBT impossible in MY lifetime.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)because our elections are a joke and the primary system pretty much is determined by those with lots of money. Elections are an illusion pretty much... like in any other totalitarian state.
On the bright side, yes, I am that cynical... giving the LGBT community rights (which I favor by the way) is favored by the Power Structure, while they take rights away from women and workers. It is the cynical divide and conquer strategy fully at work.
While they do that, they take away our collective rights to privacy , self incrimination and freedom of speech and press, which allows them to take rights away at pleasure in the future.
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)
I'm cracking up. Between the "never criticizing Obama hurt the party" (I must have been asleep during that 8 minute period when people here did not unendingly criticize this president over some of the most moronic, inane, and dishonest things) and the "many of us are done" ("many" being about 12% of Dems, if that much) there is so much dishonesty, revisionism and ego stroking in this thread it's almost funny.
mick063
(2,424 posts)You are joking right?
I have been sorely disappointed for quite awhile now.
Using Social Security as a bargaining chip is sorely disappointing.
You expect me to vote for that shit?
Never, ever going to happen. Never.
Let Satan win. Living in hell may inspire this nation toward real change. My last, final hope is based on anger, and nothing will piss people off more than the GOP agenda.
I'm turning the burner on high. Hopefully the frog will jump out of the pot. A risk I'm willing to take.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)hlthe2b
(102,197 posts)of words, phrases and beliefs not remotely resembling what your fellow DUers are saying.
Despicable--but YOU know that.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)hlthe2b
(102,197 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)My fear is that she won't, given her husband's embrace of it in the 1990's.
Commodity Futures Modernization Act
Telecommunications Act
NAFTA
etc...
boston bean
(36,220 posts)In fact in 2008 she was much more critical of NAFTA than people gave her credit for. Also, people gave Obama a pass on his behind the scenes telling Canada not to listen to the campaign rhetoric he was speaking against NAFTA.
allin99
(894 posts)that's what's even crazier. lolol.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)of being too DLC!
allin99
(894 posts)lol.
Is it people who are constantly ready to hate already have their hated figure and enjoy indulging? Something like that? Cuz it clearly runs deep, and yet the other guy has been exactly who certain types of progressives feared she would be and they're still foaming at the mouth over Hillary.
and, ooh, she has money, evil. Do they think Mr. Obama is broke? lol. he'll be even more broke perhaps after he leaves office and writes some books? i hate things that aren't logical.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)And I will support her for president. And I will speak out with others when she goes astray. My pov is that this is where many went wrong with Obama. If he had the whole party speaking out against certain things, he and us would be in a better place.
Hillary, has money... Obama raised a billion... more than anyone else in history.
If the last go around in 2008 proved anything, it proved how much sexism dwells in our party. Get ready for it. She will be called a bitch, a witch, a hag, a woman scorned, and much worse ad infinitum. There were democrats who used cutesy ways to call her a c*n*.
It was really depressing...
You wanna see some people get really afraid with change, watch when a person with nothing dangling between her legs, appears to be winning.
allin99
(894 posts)i lived through quite a bit of that in 08. Looks like certain types of "progressives" are for some reason very excited to get an early start, it's "in case she runs" is what i was told.
but after all the special ways to hate the bi=ch wh-re dlc millionare dlc'er every name in the book because obama was to be the opposite of everything bad they said she was,!!! RAWRRR, in 08... turns out obama was what they said they feared, and yet they're about to do another run through of the very same hate show.
(and it's so damn visceral, and so readily available. Instant switch, "hillary", "RAWWRRRRRRRRR!!!!". 
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The misogynist name calling came from all sides. Granted that the internet denizens are mostly young males, but I was shocked to read some of the things written that went way beyond politics. Such as some comments that the b*tch should be raped. Why was she deserving of such terrible fate? She was running against their candidate of choice.
Long after the primaries were done with, I saw Hillary in some interview. She was asked what was her biggest disappointment about 2008. She seemed to think about it for a few seconds and responded that she was surprised about the level of sexism. That she thought we had gone beyond it by now. No, we haven't. Even in 2013 a lot of the negative comments I hear and read about Hillary have as much to do with her politics as they do with her physical appearance.
When are people going to stop judging women based on their looks? As a woman I find it very depressing.
allin99
(894 posts)are second class citizens, even to women. I was positively stunned. It was so bad and so prevalent it was like an assault. I kept trying to chalk the nastiness (pure. nastiness) to young people excited and maybe they just didn't know how to handle themselves, but it wasn't just young people. Never saw anything like that. On the news, everywhere. NYT, i mean just f'g ugly. I'll never forget someone on cnn calling her a "white bitch" and someone else on calling her a boogyman, etc, i'm sure you know just as well as i, dead in the bathtub, all that f'g shit. The worst was watching few regular women not stand for that shit. That was one of the toughest parts for me. It was also the last time i described myself as a liberal until maybe once or twice somewhat recently. I didn't see a lot of the looks comments, i'm sure they were there, but i'll never forget the other stuff and watching how sexist and hateful so-called progressives were being really changed my respect for people in general and changed my perception period. I realized this whole time that i thought people believed in whatever talk they were talking, was bullshit. progressive/liberal, lol, right, sure you are. lol. Sure.
But toughest for me to see women barely say a word. That sucked. Haven't watched a cable news show since, nyt i wouldn't put in my house for my dog to piss on. I have literally repeated some of the stuff i heard said about hrc on the news to "liberals" and they're like "well, maybe...." or *shrug*. um. okay.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)To see women in the media chuckle along with their male colleagues when one of them would call Hillary any sexist disparaging name they could get away with made me angry and sad. I will also never forgive nor forget that some female leaders of the party, like Pelosi for example, bit their tongue and never said anything either. On the reverse side of the coin, the media treated Obama with kid gloves (until the Rev. Wright issue) because there's nothing worse in the US than being labeled a racist. They could call a woman any name they wanted to with impunity, but if there was a whiff of racism in the air, The Dem leadership would almost break a leg getting to a microphone to denounce it. I'm talking about the aforementioned Pelosi, but also Dean and the rest of the leadership gang. When it came to standing up against sexism, then it was crickets from the same group. That's why that summer in 2008 I changed my affiliation to "non affiliated". The DNC can go to hell. I'll never again give them a minute of my time nor a penny of my money.
allin99
(894 posts)changed my registration status. that was horrifying. I'll even give them, okay, make your choice, you like obama, okay, go for it Pelosi et al, but daaaaamn. When people would wave it off or act like the things being said were no big deal, i would say "what if they" ...and used anything even HINTING at something obnoxious you could say because Obama was black but in the same context, oh please, GASP, ZOMG, eyes all wide. lol. ok. alright ladies, way to stick up for yourselves. rah rah, dumbasses. I've learned not to fault them, they grow up like this and sometimes it's not always easy to see, unless of course it's splashed all over the news and online and in offices and on the street, but whatever, maybe it coulda been missed somehow). And that goes for NOW and the rest of those clowns too. I'm in my 30's, i have given money to women's groups since i was 18. Um, no.longer.impressed. What a sad sad thing to see, all of it. The party can most definitely suck it. ugly ugly ugly. Who knew. I think H Dean went on tv or something and right after the primary proclaimed the dnc to be the party for women. Yeah, keep up the insults mr. mansplainer, i iz so dum, tnx for this information. lol. I vote dem primaries and generals, i'll never give up voting but these faux liberals and status quo for women dem party can shove.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)When a group of women confronted him after Hillary had dropped out that June and asked him why he hadn't spoken against the sexism that she had been subjected to, he responded that he hadn't been aware of it because he didn't watch much TV. I say BULLSHIT to that.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Very true.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if those "foaming at the mouth" over Hillary are not also "foaming at the mouth" over Obama.
Hillary didn't even PRETEND to support the working class in 2007-8. Obama seemed like he might be a hair better. Since we had no other viable choice, we had to HOPE that he would live up to his rhetoric. The fact that Obama basically became Bill Clinton after he got elected, does not make the rejection of Hillary any less logical.
In fact, two terms of betrayal by Obama makes me even MORE disgusted by Hillary than I was in 2007.
But you are correct about that - many of the other leading Democrats - Cuomo, Schweitzer are just as disgustingly store bought as Hillary.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)The one that seems most at odds, would be the stalwart obama supporters that are against her. Would you agree?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if you support DLC Obama then why oppose DLC Hillary?
But there could be other reasons. Some seem to be in denial that Obama IS DLC, or that there even IS a DLC (because they officially disbanded after they completed their take-over of the Democratic Party.)
Or perhaps they feel like "We need to support Obama because he IS President" whereas if, like Hillary, he was only RUNNING to be President, then they would not be supporting him either.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)What I think the difference, for me at least, is that I can see the faults and will continue to speak out. I really do think that is where things went wrong. Obama was given to much cover to take the easy road.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)So far.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)allin99
(894 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And let's not any of these corporate fuckheads forget that she is also the Senator from Tata that gave them a big party while accepting their bribe campaign donation on the very same day IBM announced another layoff of another 10,000 New York (you know, that state she was supposed to be representing) workers so they could give the jobs to Tata.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I think we all know where she stands on one major issue.
allin99
(894 posts)and i'm sure it's only getting started, i can only imagine if she actually was running. holy s--t. lol.
Arkansas Granny
(31,513 posts)Many good DUers left or were banned because of it.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Creating a void that must be eventually filled elsewhere.
I expect that the fracture in the Democratic party will extend to message board forums as well.
allin99
(894 posts)took me a long time to go anywhere near the party, and used to volunteer for the party.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I want her to win, but I do not relish a rehash of 2008.
Arkansas Granny
(31,513 posts)allin99
(894 posts)i'm leaving. This is gonna get 2008 in no time flat. Although it looks like it's already here: i've already seen a "too old"... and i've already been called another 'hillary loving asshole' or something. i'm sure if it's anything like the internet in 2008, we all know it goes downhill from here.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Initech
(100,059 posts)I am however, getting extremely tired of the same leaders getting elected all the time. Obama is different - but he's still backed by the same morons in Congress and the Senate that were elected under Bush. If there is a woman I want president, it would be Elizabeth Warren - someone who isn't afraid to stand up to the ultra corrupt banks and big businesses.
allin99
(894 posts)how fooled were people by mr. fresh. Elizabeth warren actually IS different, that's clear. It makes sense for many many many people on the left to vote for her and support her, but what's gearing up here is not just that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We can do better. But those here that choose to side with the 1% will be happy when all the Big Money pushes Ms. Clinton thru the primary. The system is a joke. TPTB let us vote so we think we are free.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The 1% suffer from what I call class sociopathy. They dont hate us, they just dont care if we survive unless it benefits them. It's not personal.
The President's current wealth puts him barely in the 1% and he is new there but working on it. I bet in four years his wealth will double.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)all of your qualifying is nothing more back pedaling.
Oh noooooooes! He *may* have been part of the 1% (he was and he is), but not as bad as *Hillary* <<<<------ LOL. really
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)While I appreciate your attempt to marginalize my post by SUBSTITUTING your interpretation for my, well sort of EXACT WORDING...
I stated FACTS, and I stand behind them. EACH FACT I stated WAS a fact, and everything else that challenged it was conjecture.
kthanksbai
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And, I see NO FACTS in your post.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)at least not as far up the ladder as Hillary was.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)we need to tell the TRUTH and the TRUTH is, he was INDEED part of the 1% when we picked him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)The Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH in many years. They didn't even own a house.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)So, if HILLARY enters the White House as POTUS, she cannot lay claim to being poor. She's far deeper into the 1% than President Obama.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)What does it really matter? Roosevelt and Kennedy were excellent presidents and they were both wealthier than the Clintons and Obamas put together.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Clinton's income from 2000 to 2007 - $108.000,000
Obama's income from 2000 to 2007 - $8,000,000
Like I said, Obama was not nearly as high up the ladder as Clinton. There's a whole lot of dimes separating them. In fact, about a billion of them.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The Obama's were already worth a few millions. The Clintons wealth is mostly due to their books and Bill's speeches.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and Bill Clinton was a Governor from 1979 to 1992 except for two years. That's a fairly big step above the mere state senator that Obama was. Yeah sure, a Governor is almost the same as a janitorial supervisor, and never mind Hillary's six figure income as a lawyer. They "barely had anything". Yeah, right. And I forgot to note of the $8 million of Obama's income from 2000 to 2007, half of it was from 2007. His average income from 2000 to 2006 was less than $600,000 while at the same time the Clintons were making over $12,000,000 a year on average.
Hey, I think $600,000 is pretty damned rich, but over $12,000,000 a year is over TWENTY times as rich.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Bill was paid only 35K as governor. Hillary was the breadwinner of the family. They didn't make much money until after they left the WH in 2001. Their accumulated wealth derived from Bill's speeches, advances from their books and royalties.
allin99
(894 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)allin99
(894 posts) LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)and here you are, just another Hillary supporter being an a$$hole. Congrats on being such a good promoter for your candidate.
Pssst. The mention of Hillary's six figure salary was in response to the nonsense claim that the Clinton's hardly had anything before Bill became President. Sure, like a Governor's salary, free room and board and Hillary's income made them practically "working poor".
And again, this is a nonsense comparison, because the choice was NOT between Hillary 1991 and Obama 2007. It was between Obama 2007 and Hillary 2007. And by 2007, irregardless of where she was in 1991, Hillary's family had made over $100 million in the last 8 years.
allin99
(894 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I'm reading a discussion about who is the most bought and paid for...PBO or HRC. Hilarious.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Yes, he had a Billion dollars (worth a lot more back then, too), but he was a nationalist in a useful way - he cared about "America" - as contrasted to the current Rs and Ds who work ONLY for the Transnational Corporations; they see the USA as just "one more colony" to be raped and pillaged, as evidenced by their policies.
Gore was better at his acting-job in that Larry King debate with Perot, but he was 100% wrong in everything he said and predicted, as history has shown. Green-Washed Republican Talking Points - Yuk. Too bad Bush I put out a hit on Perot's daughter that forced him temporarily out of the race - which the transnational-owned media used to "Dean Scream" him out of the race. "Unelectable," they said - just like Dennis Kucinich and anyone else who won't help them throw American workers under the bus.
Looking back, we can say without a doubt that Perot was waaaayyy to the "left" of any candidate who had a shot since - at least from a working-person's perspective. He was a "centrist" before the DLC took the Democratic Party to the Right of Nixon - to make it "electable" - yeah, right - per the talking-head shills that work for the Transnational Media and decide "what Americans really think." See Overton Window.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and because he was a billionaire, I never liked or trusted him. He turned the national conversation into a concern about the deficit - something that has always been a staple of the Republican right.
Yeah, sure, he was the billionaire man of the people.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)The moral of the story is, how much worse our "electable" (sic) choices are now.
The deficit does matter, but not because of Norquist's / Rethugs reasons. The two most discussed options are to pay it or default - both of which have significant consequences. Of course, we could abolish the Fed and let the Treasury make its own debt-free money ... (Kucinich's suggestions to that affect here) ... which is much better than what we have now, though letting any "group" set "policies and priorities," given how that has worked on in history, is problematic.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)So we might as well get real about not having a 100% progressive/liberal. There are very few of them anyway.
The only important thing is, who can win the general (like it or not.) IMHO, that person is Hillary and she is much better than anyone the Republican's will put up.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)party to be so bad that we are happy with their Democratic candidate. What I hear you saying is that we should elect Ms. Clinton to prolong the inevitable. Our choice is a fast route to poverty or slower route.
I am hoping that the Republicans decide on Gov Christie. That will force Ms. Clinton to at least pretend she wants the support of the left like Obama did prior to 2008. But of course the left would be stupid to believe her like they did Obama.
Ms. Clinton would reappoint the same guys to the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. that we have had for over a decade. She will appoint the same guys to the Fed, Treasury, economic adviser, etc. as have been in control for over a decade.
In 2000 and 2004 my votes were rendered useless by corrupt elections. In 2008 my vote was won by lies. In 2012 my vote was to prevent a total disaster. I can tell the water is getting much hotter. Maybe it's time to jump out of the pot.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)that we should elect Ms. Clinton as our candidate. I said that we can't pick our nominee during this or any other primary. The Dem party & the 1% do that for us and always have.
For me it's still a lot of fun to participate in a primary, root and campaign for the person I would like to see win. It's also nice to help get others interested & involved in the process of politics.
So I feel there is still a good enough reason for us all to participate, jmho.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Without him there would be no safety net at all.
Last time I checked you don't have to be poor to have talent, ability and humanity.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was president. Why should I think she favors the lower classes. At best she would give us four more years of what we have now. And it shouldnt take too many years before 99% of the country is in poverty. If she is on our side she is keeping pretty quiet about it.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)What actions do you have a problem with?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I dont remember her putting up much a fight against the Bush atrocities. I think they are good friends. And I bet you think we can do no better. If so, we are in a whole hell of a lot of schite.
We need bold leaders to fight for us, not Wall Street, not Booz-Allen's NSA.
treestar
(82,383 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)There was a significant split, as evidenced by the fascist coup-attempt exposed by Gen Smedley Butler (the Congressional investigation was dropped when that day's "Too Big to Fail" Gangster Mafia - Morgans, etc - were found to be involved), but a large chunk of the establishment wanted to prevent Real Grassroots Revolution by stabilizing the existing system of human-exploitation through handout-policies. Essentially, they paid us off to let them continue to "claim ownership" of the Earth we depend on to live by renting it back to us on less brutal terms than before (via government-subsidy of the "you can live-with-permission by the rich" model), and Ending the Capital Strike known as the "Great Depression" via more government spending (debts we will never pay off, to the glee of the banksters). That "reform" faction won the day, and FDR was allowed to "save Capitalism from itself" - preserving wage-slavery - which he did.
Not to be naive, the outcome without FDRs "intervention" might well have been Fascism, via blind-patriotic drivel, or Totalitarian-Communism per "Let us manage the land and resources for you," schemes (USSR / China). I am also not blind to the fact that his "New Deal" was less brutal than the "Old Deal" (Norway vs. Indonesia - duh) - but that solution was, none the less, a far cry from freedom - i.e. you and me personally owning the resources we need to survive and trade in the modern world absent a "job" from "the (proverbial) man" or a government racket allegedly "protecting us" from the wolves who run give it its marching-orders behind the scenes.
In any case, it appears the PTB (sic - Powers that Should Not Be) have decided we are sufficiently dumbed down by the obedience-indoctrination schools Rockefeller designed, and our Cable Tee Vee, that they don't need to pay us off anymore with a decent standard of living, as we toil our lives away on planned-obsolescence hamster-wheels of their creation. Hell, they seem to think they can even steal the Trillions in Treasury Bills we purchased with our Social Security payments (aka "IOUs" in Rethugli-DLC-speak), transferring those resources to the Pentagon's for-profit partners in mass-murder (under a "Left-Cover" president), and we'll even go along with that. While the Chinese cash in their Treasury Bills for copper mines in South America, we are told we need to live more frugally in poverty-retirement, after a lifetime of subservience to corporate masters, (if we live long enough in their carcinogen-toxified world), as our T-Bills are stolen. Judging by the absence of any General Strikes, I'd say they may have judged correctly - though I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)that is your existence. Most Americans do not and will not live in "poverty-retirement". Things could and should be better and we should vote, work and advocate for better access to health care and security for everyone.
Hopefully, your years of struggle on the hamster wheel of the man will end soon. I will continue to vote for people who actually have a serious chance of being elected and who have enough power to reward my vote with some of the policies that will benefit us all.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)FDR preserved the class-system for his class. No doubt about that - however much "less bad" than the alternatives - or how much "more good" his policies were, compared to where we are today. But if you read what he actually said, he was speaking of an institutional mindset which plagues the so-called "liberals" (and I don't mean in the Jeffersonian sense) - managing "worker" like cattle and offering "privileges" to them for "service" rather than giving Individuals control over their own lives and destinies.
I have known a lot of people on Social Security who couldn't pay the property-taxes on the houses they paid off to the banksters. They live on the edge of poverty, if not in the thick of it, depending on various factors - and the current retires came from the days of "pensions" and "good wages." My reference is to what the next generation has on offer post the Obama give-away of our T-Bills to the MIC.
The hamster-wheel is entirely artificial. Consider the increases in efficiency / per-worker output in the last 50 years and explain why we need 2 breadwinners @ 80->120 hours/wk to raise a family now vs 1970. Watch the film "Pyramids of Waste" if you don't know the history of planned obsolescence - its not just some "theory."
The issue is not "my life" - it is "are we going to allow human beings to be treated this way?" Evidently, many are - and think "voting for" slightly larger animal-pens is acceptable. While I recognize that relative-suffering does matter, that does not mean accepting the underlying tenets of the status-quo system. If you don't recognize that "begging" for either "paycheck-permission" or "government-permission" to exist on Earth" is a problem, please wake up.
Edited to add:
"I have freed hundreds of slaves. I could have freed hundreds more IF only they would've realized they were slaves!"- Harriet Tubman
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)While Bill and Hill are among the 1% and, while they have served far better than any Bush has, they have also been a part of the problem of globalization and the erosion of our long term economic viability.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)If Hillary Clinton had run for that seat instead it would have been over on primary day.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)They keep pushing Warren as if anyone other than the Left is clamoring for her candidacy. I like Warren, but she's needed in the Senate. She had never ran for office until she ran for the Senate and barely won that seat. She doesn't have the name brand, experience or ability to raise the funds needed to mount a presidential campaign in such a short time. The 2016 campaign will probably start in full swing after the midterms next year.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)No one's announced yet for 2016 and I don't have a favored candidate for that election because there aren't any to choose from. But what I feel like is people are telling me it doesn't matter we've decided it's gonna be hillary. Well if that's the case why bother with the primaries or anything else and have the democratic party call the convention and anoint her and the rest of her family.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)So if Hillary is anointed, she certainly won't be the first nor will she be the last. Them's just the facts. The Democratic Party & the 1% always pick & anoint our primary winner, always.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)It's apparently inevitable
Little Star
(17,055 posts)person I would like to see win. It's also nice to help get others interested & involved in the process of politics.
But in reality, the party and the 1% make the actual choice in the primary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)believe we are still free. I think it works for many.
mick063
(2,424 posts)It is called extortion.
The problem with extortion is that it never goes away and the price always goes up.
Sorry....I'm tapped out.
It appears that your fear the GOP agenda greatly, yet dive head first into GOP policy.
I will let others decide on how this looks.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)about any extortion. Just because something is a fact doesn't equal any kind of extortion. WTH are you talking about?
I have never dived head first into any GOP policy and that is quite the accusation you got going on there. The way our Dem primary process works is Dem policy not GOP policy.
Let the Democratic process work.
I will be involved. Unless I see no sign of a Democratic process.
How much money will this democratic process require?
allin99
(894 posts)it didn't happen in 08 when there was that same feeling. Ignore it.
Infact, no one is even pushing it, and those that would, media, only do it for fun. b/c if they feel like picking someone else at the end, they will, and all the stuff leading up to that point doesn't matter.
Don't worry about it, really. It's just fear, and don't let fear rule your emotions.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)who will be the democratic nominee for president in 2016 we have a midterm election to get through. Let's face it we lose seats and do poorly there our current president and if we retain executive control in 16 are going to have a worse time trying to govern than our current issue.
allin99
(894 posts)i used to watch cable news. After the first primary, january, msnbc called the race, the entire race, they said, it's over, he's here, he's the one, it's over. at that point i hadn't even chosen a candidate! and i'm a super tuesday primary.
i no longer watch that crap. it's crap. They want to talk about 2016 b/c it makes people excited and gets them viewers. it's them who is doing it, not hillary.
As soon as i saw this site was doing 2016 shit i backed off, it's wholly stupid. But it's exciting and that's why people do it. But it gets frustrating and then it turns you sideways, like you said. I wish i knew the solution. My only solution was to back up off any place where it is in abundance, cuz it really is that stupid. You could be stuck with 2 extra years of horse race garbage. Maybe they should start a board just for it. ? "2016 Elections" or something.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The media is the one pushing this meme.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm assuming you know how to win on the West Coast, or think you do. She'll have a hard time out here, harder than last time and she did not win Oregon last time. She tried, hard. Bill spoke at elementary schools to 200 people in this county, they both worked so hard. Then they lost to Obama.
I had been told her nomination was a foregone conclusion starting in 2006. But in the end, she lost.
When she comes to Oregon, any sign of spin will be met with rejection. Perhaps open taunting. She'll need to be more honest than politicians ever are, or she will be laughed out of the State.
SaveOurDemocracy
(4,400 posts)Honest like Obama was? His whole campaign was a marketing masterpiece.
djean111
(14,255 posts)That's the bottom line - if all a candidate says when he is campaigning is casually dismissed as "just campaign rhetoric", there is no reason to take the next candidate at their word.
I will vote for Hillary if she is the candidate, but I see no point in wasting my time listening to her, reading paeans to her, or participating in The Politics Game.
RC
(25,592 posts)What I don't understand are people here defending the 3 Way, DLC and DINO's causing or perpetuating the problems. Then claim to be Democrats trying to fix the problems. Are they blind?
Neither Hillary nor Obama are centralist Democrats. Both are Right of Center. How else to explain Hilliary's hawkishness and free trade policies and Obama's fascination with putting Social Security on the table first thing as a negotiating point. Chained CPI on top of not working to correct the S/S broken inflation index? Sorry, but those are not Democratic agendas.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Possibly. Just like in 08.
The old adage 'your better with the devil you know than the devil you don't' comes to mind.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)taken well here. This is not 2008, in case you have lost track.
on point
(2,506 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)All of you party faithful better listen up.
There are many that are wise to the anti Democratic values "plant". The puppet of Walmart.
Yep, I said it, and I will say much more as well.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)with the Centrist trip, the 'I mount, I lecture, I depart expecting full agreement' routine. Blech. Craven stuff.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's about the totality of Hillary Clinton's political career. My issue? Finding a candidate who isn't as corporate friendly as Hillary- and she's very corporate friendly. Is that possible? I don't know yet. I don't ask that a candidate see all issues just as I do.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)about somethings they said about him in 2008. Please take that into consideration.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)I don't think we can take more of Clinton (Hillary) or Bush(Jeb).
Obama is more of the same of the Clinton doctrine. At least Hillary isn't too much like Bill Clinton or Obama but still very similar.
ebbie15644
(1,214 posts)want a true progressive next time and I want to vote for someone that supports getting corporate money out of elections and will REALLY work to promote policies that help the middle class. If Hillary is that person, I'll support her. If someone else is more progressive, that is the person I'll vote for!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)We have no one as yet announcing candidacy. I'd rather focus on getting a responsive Congress next year---and so should you.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Little items like her vociferous support for Bush's Iraq war and Obama's drone war are important to me.
mick063
(2,424 posts)and Obama's support for her carries little weight with me.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Warren is hardly some unkempt, New Age hippie from Woodstock.
If we don't put a stop to the corporate kleptocracy, the rest--dealing with climate change and energy descent--is impossible. The kleptocrats have their foot to the pedal and are speeding us toward the cliff, where I assume they think only that 47% will be jettisoned and they'll somehow survive in their fortresses.
Only if we slow down their madness will be have a chance of mitigating the worst effects of that crash. Reining in Wall Street is job number one. Hillary will just provide more of the same.
Do I admire the hell out of her and appreciate what she's done for women's rights, including paving the way for women like Warren who are 10 years her junior? Hell yes. But I admire a lot of people I don't think should be POTUS.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)That will tell me what level of respect she has for human rights, civil rights, Constitutional law and international law.
ceonupe
(597 posts)Benghazi coverup should not calm your worries about her. We all know that she knew what went down and she knew of the CIA arms program and she knew this was not about an anti Muslim video. to this day I dont know why they did not just tell us the truth. We are adults and can understand accidents and mis calculations happen. We could have understood that the CIA gun/arms give away depot went bad and this was the result.
Hillary was a former member of the walmart board when they heavily supported NAFTA like polices and switched from US sourcing to mostly Asian and other cheap labor suppliers.
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)That were were running an arms program via the CIA and that was the source of the attack not the coverup story of anti-Muslim video on YouTube.
Yes the government and Hillary knew what was going on and did not want the truth to comeout about our operation to provide direct support to the rebels.
This is no longer CT stuff but established fact. What I don't understand is why they went with a lie knowing the truth about the CIA operation would comeout.
They have gone so far as to pay for silence from many involved. CNN has a great indepth article on this that came out end of last week.
No reason for this lie and no reason for her to act dumb when questioned about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)dreaded 'left'.
This thread is a perfect example of why Democrats are losing their most loyal voters.
The same old hopeless message that you may as vote for the DLCer or the Third Way because there NO HOPE of anything getting better.
I hope Democrats have a better message than this by the time of the election.
chowder66
(9,066 posts)then we have to help it by voting in more Dems. We need overwhelming majorities. Then it will be much harder for Dem officials to explain centrist votes on legislation, policies, etc. Until then they are going to continue to lean toward the center to get even the smallest amount accomplished.
I can't imagine that the Republicans are about to "stop" their obstruction, they have been in it so long that there will always be those who can't give it up unless we replace them with Democrats.
Some have become so cynical they most likely will inadvertently cause some to not vote or only vote for those who cannot be elected. That will not help bring overwhelming majorities so we can start driving our party back to the left.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)behind their name, how will it be different then the current guy who kicked down the WH doors just to make sure we all know he is bought and paid for by lobbyists?
While there is probably not much to vote for this cycle, perhaps it is time to vote for those who actually represent Democratic values and the party platform this time.
chowder66
(9,066 posts)and maybe I needed to spell it out more clearly but it was the idea of how we get the party to go back to the left. If we only get contenders that need to show a centrist side or even lean centrist then we must do what we can to get more left centric dems elected overwhelmingly.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)and i do appreciate you bringing up the topic.
chowder66
(9,066 posts)I needed to clarify it a little more.
millennialmax
(331 posts)A rigid ideologue from either side would be a horrible choice and only ensure further gridlock.
If that changes by 2016, then I will reevaluate my choice... but for now I'm READY FOR HILLARY.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)an issue in the last 8 years?
brewens
(13,562 posts)I like that. I'm not already locked in a won't be for some time. I find people that do that too early won't give it up, no matter how wrong things go for their candidate.
I remember when Perot, who I intially liked to a degree, blew up. No one in their right mind should have been behind that guy toward the end. But there they were still, going out and voting for him.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)would be better choices as candidates for President.
I base my judgment not solely on what issues a candidate claims to support, but also on what I believe s/he will actually do about those issues.
It's a matter of who I believe I can trust, and, based on my experience, I don't believe I can trust DLC/Third Way candidates.
I like Hillary Clinton ok, it appears that she did a good job as SOS, but someone like Elizabeth Warren, who has demonstrated willingness and action to subjugate banksters and other wealthy private interests, and place them under the control of the people, would be a much more constructive president.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That was an action I can not forgive with one exception. Maybe if a candidate pledges to prosecute The Bush Gang for war crimes. But even then, a promise by a candidate is worthless.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)Don't worry. I can be counted on to vote for the candidate I believe will do the least amount of harm...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)dogknob
(2,431 posts)Republicans: Lucy hides the football and dispenses misinformation at her "5-cent psychology" stand.
Democrats: Lucy has the football and she's ready for you to try and kick it... and she might not yoink it this time!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)inaugurated the current president last January.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Didn't we just inaugurate a president earlier this year?
I'm not going to pick a candidate 4 years ahead of time.
When I do, HRC won't be on my list of contenders, for a variety of reasons. I'll want to see everyone willing to run in the primaries first.
My support will go to any left-liberal, NON-NEOLIBERAL, if there is one to support.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)allin99
(894 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)No amount of campaign promises is going to win my vote anymore. Now it's time to look at what the candidates really stand for, and the only way to do that is to look at their voting record. I'm very far to the left, almost socialist, so I'm not sure I'll get to vote at all unless I go third party or unless a liberal democratic candidate really comes out into the forefront. I want someone that will reform campaign finance and get rid of Citizens United. I want someone who will spend billions more on education than what we are spending right now and someone who will get rid of Race to the Top. I want someone who will fight for single payer healthcare. Does this candidate exist? I don't know. But I do know one thing. I will no longer settle for someone who doesn't stand for these principles.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Hilary fanatics.
She has not said she is running. Leave the poor woman ALONE. BOTH of you.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)no-one has declared their candidacy (including Hillary), and the primaries don't start until March of 2016.
I'd also remind you that Hillary was the "inevitable" candidate in 2008, and look how that turned out.
brooklynite
(94,483 posts)...but the 2016 Election started a year ago, when I was able to set up a one-on-one meeting in Charlotte with a prospective candidate, and had the opportunity to watch host of other prospects make the rounds of the Iowa/New Hampshire/Ohio/etc. delegations; and its continued since then with "Ready for Hillary" racking up $1 Million (in mostly small contributions) to support a prospective Presidential campaign. I don't -know- if Hillary will run, but the people I talk to believe that she's interested and is protecting her opportunity whenever possible. Is she inevitable? Perhaps not, but then I'm happy to say I'll support whomever the Democratic candidate is, like it says in the TOS.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And "interested and protecting her opportunity"...while other people are networking and working their ground game in Iowa and New Hampshire. Which sounds like "inevitable" is going to get blindsided, unless she makes up her mind that she's serious and actually going to do more than expect the nomination on a silver platter. Otherwise it's just 2008 all over again.
allin99
(894 posts)then people could get their millionaire walmart republican as a freshman in college stuff out. and occasionally talk about candidates they *like*
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hillary is on the board of Directors of Wal-Mart, is she not?
If HRC is the nominee I will support her but until then she's not entitled to anything automatically.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)But all of this is just spitballing. Ms Warren has not announced that she is even remotely interested in running.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)All I can say is I have reservations about both Hillary and Biden, although between the two I would take Hillary.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She was the only woman on the board when she was a member in the 80s. It was a different Wal-Mart and Sam Walton was still alive.
"In 1986, when Wal-Mart's founder, Sam Walton, tapped Clinton to be the company's first female board member, Wal-Mart was a fraction of its current size, with $11.9 billion in net sales."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Thanks for the Clarification.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She was young at the time and her term was a bit of a mixed bag. In fairness, they only met 4 times a year. I don't know how much influence she could have exerted, the other members were mostly Republican, including Walton.
Here's a fair article of her time as a board member.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?pagewanted=all
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)One is against; I'm wary of her 3rd way/triangulation connections and I'm not sure familial dynasties are good for American politics. Plus I still am not happy about her vote for the IWR, even though it's been a while.
Two is for; I acknowledge her skilled political abilities, her connections and her knowledge of how the game is played- she would be a formidable candidate, probably the most formidable one we could field.
Three is neutral, except to say it's still REAL early.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Granted, Old-Man Walton insisted on having a "made in America" section, which his greedy "evil-death-tax" children quickly abandoned, spitting on his grave in the process. The WWII generation only murdered and exploited foreigners, after all, since most of them served in mortal-combat with 'regular working-folks'. Vietnam chicken-hawks changed all that and became equal-opportunity exploiters - i.e. - the chickens came home to roost in the next generation.
Wal Mart wasn't as bad back then, because the DLC / Rethuglican Tag-Team hadn't made it possible for it to be as corrosive to Americans as it is now through "globalization" policies. Please don't shop at SquWal-Or-Mart (if you can afford not to and still eat, thanks to the lack of diverse employment opportunities that it helped bring to fruition).
allin99
(894 posts)c'mon man. i feel like i'm in the twilight zone with these arguments. there are so many real reasons to not want to vote for her, not 25 year old so-what stuff. c'mon man.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I suppose I could have it again, but, what's the point?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)wouldn't have toppled the elections last guard against a bought government, SCOTUS .
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I'll leave you to it.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)then let the 1% elect her.
She will show how much she needs those of us among the 99% during the campaign. If she doesn't need us, then good luck to her while I sit on my hands.
If no candidate supports the 99%, then I'll sit it out. No point in fighting over which advocate for the 1% should represent them, let the elites decide it and leave me out.
longship
(40,416 posts)I thought she was retired.
That's my objection to all the Hillary 2016 blabbing. She isn't running for anything.
And the straw man than pointing that out means that somebody is hostile towards Ms. Clinton is equally ridiculous.
It's three years until a 2016 candidate will be chosen. Relax. Stop hyperventilating about Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or anybody else you like today.
I will support one or more of the candidates in the 2016 primaries and will support the nominee. In the event that Ms. Clinton opts to run, I will likely not support her in the primary. That doesn't mean I am hostile towards her. I find posing Warren as a possibility to be naive.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)I canvassed heavily for in 2000. I don't hate Elizabeth Warren either - we gave about $1000 to her campaign.
I just believe America's infrastructure is a piece of crap, and that requires men and women swinging hammers to fix. So if Sherrod Brown for some crazy reason wants that crappy job - I'm voting and volunteering for him. That is - if Biden doesn't run. Biden runs - I'm supporting him.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)she`s too old. we need someone younger to be the president
allin99
(894 posts)
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Holy shit! It looks like Hillary IS my candidate, after all...
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Some of us are proudly liberal and will no longer support more of the same corporatist garbage and "lesser evil" nonsense. We know that when a corporation buys a candidate -- regardless of their party -- that candidate is going to do exactly what his or her owners want, and more we know that when right wing facism comes from a Democrat it basically gets a pass.
So... no thanks. I won't support Hillary.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The only reason that Hillary is being talked about is because she, or at the very least, people who speak for her, have already begun the race! This op is like a scenario where one racer starts driving on the Indy 500 track eleven months before the race, and then saying "Look at that, none of the other racers are even close!"
As far as my guy, martin O malley
Signed a bill to legalize same sex marriage in maryland, against heavy opposition from the Catholics.
Signed a bill to allow immigrant children in state tuition of their parents paid state income tax
Suspended the Death Penalty
Is also a Governor that knows how the executive branch works
supports federal abortion funding
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Martin_O%60Malley_Abortion.htm
Keep in mind, he made his stance on LGBT issues and Abortion in Maryland, the state that was heavily Catholic from it's very inception, when it was set aside for English Catholics to emigrate to. He has already shown he can take and land a punch, and not try to soften it with charm.
brooklynite
(94,483 posts)...making the rounds of State Delegations in Charlotte. Don't think he was doing it for the free breakfast.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Frankly, DU does not get to decide who is and isn't a Democrat or worthy of claiming themselves as Democrat. You also don't get to decide who is and isn't a 'good Democrat'. In this thread already, you've heard people claim the party runs the risk of losing its support by continuing nominating Clinton, Obama & Hillary-like Democrats. Yet, they also either ignore, or have fooled themselves into believing, that the two most successful Democratic presidents since FDR are the ones they despise the most.
Clinton is a rock star in his party. He has extremely high approval ratings among Democrats. So does Obama. In the latest Gallup poll, 83% of Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing. I suspect that number would be nowhere near 80% if I asked DUers if they approved of Obama.
So, let's not pretend DU speaks for Democrats. DU's demographics don't even equal the demographics of the party - as this forum is most likely far whiter than the party as a whole.
FWIW, in 1979, Carter had an approval rating of just 37% among Democrats.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)I'm at this point no longer a reformer and wonder if "voting" for the top levels of government isn't a ridiculous act of mockery on the part of the very rich who appear to already run it completely (all candidates being their choice as they won't have anyone around contrary to their goals). The Occupy Movement proved that the riot cops come out to defend banks and banksters and do NOT appear when we protested away from the banks (temporary protests not involving claiming ground).
The so-called economy is dear and blessed to the government and is apparently more important than the people of this country, despite the root of the word "Democracy": The voice and will of the people.
I would support a Sanders/Warren team up but suspect the powers that be would effectively block them at every turn. It really, really is about the 1% versus the rest of us as they globalize and write their own legislation (ALEC, TPP).
Read the three leaked Citigroup Plutonomy memos, “Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances”, “Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer”, and "The Plutonomy Symposium: Rising Tides Lifting Yachts" :
http://our99angrypercent.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/download-citigroup-plutonomy-memos/
If any weren't aware of it, Goldman Sachs alone managed in the last decade to position two executives as heads of European countries (Italy, Greece) and as heads of banks, systems, and trends. Mussolini called Fascism a merger of state and corporate influence, so we're there and must stop it before the world becomes "the Company Store". The Plutonomy are working upon taking over the planet, or at least its resources. Saudis know oil won't last forever, for example and if you've noted the growth of Abu Dubai...
Bill Clinton says it's time to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html
Mitt Romney may have run a company that outsourced jobs but Clinton ran a country that did.
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/bill-clinton/50463e6ffe34444be000015e
(Clinton's) Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
(Hillary) Clinton addressed an issue that has imperiled her standing with some labor leaders: Bill Clinton's embrace of globalization and free trade. (Nice words but does she mean it.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
NAFTA = TPP. If you read the Plutonomy memos, you'll note them saying that globalisation is a prime driver of Plutonomy. And Bill Clinton has shown up as being far, far too chummy with the Bush disaster family, who are directly involved in Plutonomy (along with Saudis who invest in Citigroup, etc.)
It's long since time to look past who these people say they are and to consider them solely by their actions and who benefits from said actions.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'liberal true believer' is the rhetoric that shouts disrespect and defines the Third Way mentality. That shit needs to be fully rejected.
I was on the fence about her until I read this. Now she looks creepy ass 1%.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I could simply re-watch the Republicans interrogating her about Benghazi.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)attacks Pres. Obama's record and legacy? Because that's what she'll have to do to be the candidate some here want her to be.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Dear leaders maybe?
Nope, public servants, our employees.
Somewhere the propaganda changed this, why the cults of personality get worst with very President starting with Nixon actually.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)point stands: If Elizabeth Warren, to be the candidate the far left wants her to be, attacks Pres. Obama's record and legacy, she will turn off a good segment of potential voters. Sounds like a winning strategy!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Cults of personality do not belong in a functioning democracy. Given ours is hardly one, I understand why you do not understand this.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Proclaiming they don't belong does nothing to change how voters think.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Which the US is...in that we agree. Non functioning democracies, where elections are a fiction, need a dear leader.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... and then based on who's done or doing what, select a candidate that aligns with my 'vision'.
I don't think simply settling for 'whoever finished 2nd last time because it's "their turn now"' is the right thing to do.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We've had a Clinton in office, and a Clinton as Sec of State and a runner up in the last Dem primary.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Hillary is.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)candidate in the primaries, and when that person is out, back the most progressive of WHAT'S LEFT.
In Hillary vs. Obama, at least on the wars, Obama looked more progressive.
In action, he was something else.
The real issue is not which candidate, but how many corporate dictated policies that they will enact that the Republicans would have done anyway.
privatizing public education
neoliberal foreign policy that puts banks before people and even before democracy
not laying a finger on Wall Street no matter what their crimes
not lifting a finger to help organized labor
not doing anything different on trade agreements
and so on.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I don't know who that is yet.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Why? Because it's three friggin' years away.
What does all this talk about Hillary or Elizabeth or Joe or Sherrod or Bernie do to roll back the conservative tide in the state legislatures that is drowning our people? Not a damned thing.
Four years ago, Democrats held the majority in 27 state legislatures. Now we hold the majority in 17. There were 26 Democratic governors. Now there are 20.
But sure, let's have a pissing match over which non-candidate candidate is the best three years down the road. It keeps us all distracted while the Republicans/Koch Brothers/ALEC grab everything else.
dembotoz
(16,797 posts)