Resolved? Hillary Clinton is a Liberal Democrat

[bigtree]

I'd support Bernie (or O'Malley, or others) as a Democratic candidate and I will NOT be voting for Hillary in my primary or encouraging anyone else to do so.

However, I don't regard Hillary as an enemy of progressive values. Neither (apparently) do these organizations . . .


Hillary Rodham Clinton's Ratings and Endorsements (Project Vote Smart)

Project Vote Smart displays all known interest group ratings for each candidate and official, regardless of issue or bias.

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared.

Even with the breadth of ratings still displayed here, I did cut many republican and conservative groups from this list for the purposes of more brevity. If there's something you find that you think deserves highlighting, then, by all means, do so.

(all of these are linked on the page where you can compare her rating to other politicians)


Abortion

2007-2008 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%


Abortion and Reproductive

2008 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
2007-2008 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2007 Population Connection - Positions on Population Stabilization 100%
2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2006 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
2006 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions 93%
2005-2006 National Organization for Women - Positions 96%
2005-2006 Population Action International - Positions on Reproductive Health 100%
2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2005 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2005 The Population Institute - Positions 100%
2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003 The Population Institute - Positions 100%
2002 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2001 Population Connection - Positions 100%
1996-2003 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
1995-2004 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions 100%



Agriculture and Food
2007-2008 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 87%
2007-2008 National Farmers Union - Family Farm Advocacy Score 100
2007-2008 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2007 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 65%
2007 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 20%
2006 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 66%
2005-2006 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 29%
2005-2006 National Farmers Union - Positions 83%
2005 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 25%
2005 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 80%
2003-2004 National Farmers Union - Positions 67%
2001-2002 National Farmers Union - Positions 90%
2001 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%


Animals and Wildlife

2010 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 0%
2008 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 0
2007-2008 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions on Animal Protection 83%
2007-2008 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 83
2007 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions on Animal Protection 75
2006 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 0%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 82%
2005-2006 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 100+
2005-2006 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 100%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 100%
2004 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2004 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 100%
2004 Born Free USA - Positions 100%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2004 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 0%
2004 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 100
2004 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 100
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2003 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2003 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 100%
2003 Animal Welfare Institute - Positions 100%
2003 Born Free USA - Positions 100%
2003 Doris Day Animal League - Positions 100%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 90%
2003 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 100%
2003 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Humane Association - Positions 86%
2001-2002 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 86%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 60%
2001-2002 Animal Welfare Institute - Positions 86%
2001-2002 Born Free USA - Positions 86%
2001-2002 Doris Day Animal League - Positions 86%
2001-2002 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 86%
2001-2002 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 86%


Budget, Spending and Taxes

2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Lifetime Score 100%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2007 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2007 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions on Middle Class Advocacy 100
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2006 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2006 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 50%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2005-2006 Citizens for Tax Justice - Positions 80%
2005-2006 Population Action International - Positions on Reproductive Health 100%
2005 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2005 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2005 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 50%
2004 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2004 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 86%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 60%
2003-2004 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2003 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2003 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 21%
2003 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 21%
2003 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 55%
2001-2002 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Concord Coalition - Positions 58%
2001-2002 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - Positions 100%
2001 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2001 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 27%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%


Business and Consumers
2009-2010 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2009 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2008-2011 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 100%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2008 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 67%
2007-2008 American Association of University Women - Positions 60%
2007-2008 American Forest and Paper Association - Forest Products Advocacy Score 100%
2007-2008 Associated Builders & Contractors - Positions 25%
2007-2008 Associated General Contractors of America - Positions 60%
2007-2008 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2007-2008 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007-2008 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007-2008 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association - Positions 75%
2007-2008 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2007 American Association of University Women - Positions 66
2007 Business-Industry Political Action Committee - Positions 7%
2007 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2007 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007 Population Connection - Positions on Population Stabilization 100%
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2007 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 25%
2006 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2006 National Association of Government Contractors - Positions 100%
2006 National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors - Positions 100%
2006 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association - Positions 71%
2006 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2006 State PIRGs Working Together - Positions 91%
2006 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 67%
2006 United States Public Interest Research Group - Positions 91%
2005-2006 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005-2006 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 42%
2005-2006 Associated General Contractors of America - Positions 50%
2005-2006 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions on Population Stabilization 92%
2005 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 83%
2005 National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors - Positions 0%
2005 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2005 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 35%
2004 American Shareholders Association - Positions 10%
2004 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association - Positions 58%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 State PIRGs Working Together - Positions 95%
2004 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 50%
2004 United States Public Interest Research Group - Positions 95%
2003-2004 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 41%
2003-2004 Associated General Contractors of America - Positions 57%
2003-2004 National Education Association - Positions 85%
2003-2004 National Education Association - Positions 85%
2003-2004 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 93%
2003-2004 National School Boards Association - Positions 67%
2003-2004 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 76%
2003 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003 National Education Association - Positions 82%
2003 National Education Association - Positions 82%
2003 National Federation of Independent Business - Positions 0%
2003 National Retail Federation - Positions 38%
2003 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 91%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2003 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 35%
2003 United States Public Interest Research Group - Positions 81%
2002 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2002 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2002 National School Boards Association - Positions 100%
2002 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association - Positions 36%
2002 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 45%
2002 United States Public Interest Research Group - Positions 85%
2001-2002 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Business-Industry Political Action Committee - Positions 5%
2001-2002 National Association for the Self-Employed - Positions 0%
2001-2002 National Association of Manufacturers - Positions 6%
2001-2002 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Electrical Contractors Association - Positions 42%
2001-2002 National Federation of Independent Business - Positions 25%
2001-2002 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 90%
2001-2002 Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association - Positions 0%
2001-2002 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 96%
2001-2002 Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council - Positions 7%
2001 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001 American Shareholders Association - Positions 0%
2001 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2001 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2001 National Federation of Independent Business - Positions 17%
2001 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association - Positions 40%
2001 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2001 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2001 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 43%


Campaign Finance and Elections

2007-2008 Arab American Institute - Positions on Arab American Issues 50%
2007 Arab American Institute - Positions on Arab American Issues 83%
2007 League of Women Voters - Campaign Finance and Election Issues Score 75%
2005-2006 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions on Population Stabilization 92%
2003-2004 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 76%
2003 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 91%
2001-2002 Arab American Institute - Positions 50%
2001-2002 Public Citizen's Congress Watch - Positions 96%
2001 Common Cause - Positions 100%


Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

2008 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 70%
2007-2008 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 75%
2007-2008 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 95%
2007-2008 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions on Civil and Human 83
2007-2008 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2007-2008 The Arc - Positions 100%
2007 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 67
2007 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 75%
2007 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions on Middle Class Advocacy 100
2007 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 85%
2007 League of Women Voters - Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Score 100%
2007 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur A+
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 100%
2006 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2006 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 50%
2006 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 93%
2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur A+
2005-2006 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 83%
2005-2006 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 89%
2005-2006 Iranian American Political Action Committee - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 96%
2005-2006 National Organization for Women - Positions 96%
2005 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 100%
2005 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2005 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 100%
2005 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 95%
2005 National Council of La Raza - Positions 100%
2005 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2004 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2004 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 86%
2003-2004 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 78%
2003-2004 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 88%
2003-2004 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 100%
2003-2004 League of United Latin American Citizens - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 100%
2003 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2003 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2003 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 100%
2003 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 60%
2001-2002 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 100%
2001-2002 League of United Latin American Citizens - Positions 88%
2001-2002 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 100%
2001-2002 People for the American Way - Positions 92%
2001 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 50%
2001 Common Cause - Positions 100%
2001 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 100%
2001 League of United Latin American Citizens - Positions 91%
2001 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 100%

Conservative

2008 American Conservative Union - Positions 11%
2008 Eagle Forum - Positions 0%
2008 Eagle Forum - Positions 0%
2008 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 17.8%
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 0%
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 11%
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 37%
2008 The Club for Growth - Positions 3%
2007-2009 The New American - Positions on Conservative Issues 18%
2007-2008 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 8%
2007-2008 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 8%
2007-2008 Christian Coalition of America - Positions 0%
2007-2008 Concerned Women for America - Positions 10%
2007-2008 Concerned Women for America - Positions 10%
2007-2008 Family Research Council - Positions 0%
2007-2008 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2007-2008 National Tax Limitation Committee - Positions 5%
2007-2008 The John Birch Society - Positions 18%
2007-2008 The John Birch Society - Positions 18%
2007 American Conservative Union - Positions 0%
2007 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 8%
2007 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 8%
2007 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 0%
2007 Eagle Forum - Positions 6%
2007 Eagle Forum - Positions 6%
2007 Family Research Council - Positions 0
2007 FreedomWorks - Positions 0%
2007 GOPUSA - Positions 4%
2007 GOPUSA - Positions 4%
2007 GOPUSA - Positions 4%
2007 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 17.2%
2007 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 22%
2007 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 12%
2007 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 16%
2007 National Taxpayers Union - Fiscally Conservative Score F
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Personal Liberties 26%
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties Score 0%
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties Score 0%
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Personal Liberties 26%
2007 The Club for Growth - Positions 11%
2007 The John Birch Society - Conservative Index Score 10%
2007 The John Birch Society - Conservative Index Score 10%
2007 Traditional Values Coalition - Positions 33
2006 American Conservative Union - Positions 8%
2006 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 0%
2006 Americans for Prosperity - Positions 0%
2006 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 10%
2006 Eagle Forum - Positions 11%
2006 Eagle Forum - Positions 11%
2006 Family Research Council - Positions 0%
2006 FreedomWorks - Positions 33%
2006 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 29.8%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 35%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 35%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 14%
2006 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 17%
2006 The Club for Growth - Positions 8%
2006 The John Birch Society - Positions 21%
2006 The John Birch Society - Positions 21%
2006 Traditional Values Coalition - Positions 20%
2005-2006 American Family Association - Positions 0%
2005-2006 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 4%
2005-2006 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 4%
2005-2006 Concerned Women for America - Positions 11%
2005-2006 Concerned Women for America - Positions 11%
2005-2006 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2005-2006 National Tax Limitation Committee - Positions 8%
2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 10%
2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 10%
2005 American Conservative Union - Positions 12%
2005 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 5%
2005 Eagle Forum - Positions 25%
2005 Eagle Forum - Positions 25%
2005 FreedomWorks - Positions 0%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 10%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 15%
2005 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 20%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 29%
2005 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 9%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Personal Liberties 45%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties Score 11%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties Score 11%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Personal Liberties 45%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 28%
2005 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 28%
2004 American Conservative Union - Positions 0%
2004 American Family Association - Positions 0%
2004 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 10%
2004 Christian Action Network - Lifetime Score 8%
2004 Christian Coalition of America - Positions 0%
2004 Eagle Forum - Positions 20%
2004 Eagle Forum - Positions 20%
2004 Family Research Council - Positions 0%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 0%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 36%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 41%
2004 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 11%
2004 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 13%
2004 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 13%
2004 The John Birch Society - Positions (Fall) 33%
2004 The John Birch Society - Positions (Fall) 33%
2003-2004 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 5%
2003-2004 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 5%
2003-2004 Concerned Women for America - Positions 7%
2003-2004 Concerned Women for America - Positions 7%
2003-2004 FreedomWorks - Positions 7%
2003-2004 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2003-2004 National Tax Limitation Committee - Positions 5%
2003-2004 The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score 56%
2003-2004 The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score 0%
2003 American Conservative Union - Positions 10%
2003 American Family Association - Positions 0%
2003 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 5%
2003 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 5%
2003 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 5%
2003 Christian Coalition of America - Positions 0%
2003 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0%
2003 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0%
2003 Eagle Forum - Positions 13%
2003 Eagle Forum - Positions 13%
2003 Family Research Council - Positions 14%
2003 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 14%
2003 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 7%
2003 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 0%
2003 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 11%
2003 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 21%
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2003 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 30
2002 American Conservative Union - Positions 10%
2002 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 5%
2002 Eagle Forum - Positions 25%
2002 Eagle Forum - Positions 25%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy Score 0%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 27%
2002 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 13%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 0%
2002 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 17%
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Conservative Issues 31
2002 The John Birch Society - Positions 25%
2002 The John Birch Society - Positions 25%
2001-2002 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 7%
2001-2002 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 7%
2001-2002 Concerned Women for America - Positions 25%
2001-2002 Concerned Women for America - Positions 25%
2001-2002 Family Research Council - Positions 11%
2001-2002 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2001-2002 National Tax Limitation Committee - Positions 0%
2001-2002 The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score 25%
2001-2002 The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score 13%
2001 American Conservative Union - Positions 12%
2001 Americans for Tax Reform - Positions 5%
2001 Christian Coalition of America - Positions 0%
2001 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 27%
2001 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 13%
2001 National Taxpayers Union - Positions 3%
2001 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 10%
2001 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions 10%
2001 The John Birch Society - Positions 5%
2001 The John Birch Society - Positions 5%


Crime

2007-2008 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 50%
2007 National Employment Lawyers Association - Positions 100%
2006 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 88%
2005-2006 Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants - Positions 70%
2005 National Criminal Justice Association - Positions 75%
2005 National Criminal Justice Association - Positions 75%
2002 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 0%
2001-2002 American Bar Association - Positions 100%


Defense

2008 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental Spending Score 67%
2007 Council for a Livable World - Positions 86%
2007 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Positions on Iraq War Amendments 75%
2005-2006 Council for a Livable World - Positions 75%
2005 PeacePAC - Positions 100%
2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 66%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 92%
2001-2004 Council for a Livable World - Positions 75%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 77%
1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 56%


Education

2009-2010 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2009 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2007-2008 American Association of University Women - Positions 60%
2007-2008 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2007-2008 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007-2008 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007 American Association of University Women - Positions 66
2007 Association For Supervision and Curriculum Development - Positions 100%
2007 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2007 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007 National Education Association - Positions on Public Education Teaching Profession Issues A
2007 Population Connection - Positions on Population Stabilization 100%
2007 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) - Positions 100%
2006 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 100%
2006 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2005-2006 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2005 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005 National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions 83%
2005 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Education Association - Positions 85%
2003-2004 National Education Association - Positions 85%
2003-2004 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 93%
2003-2004 National School Boards Association - Positions 67%
2003-2004 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003 National Education Association - Positions 82%
2003 National Education Association - Positions 82%
2003 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2002 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 50%
2002 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2002 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2002 National School Boards Association - Positions 100%
2002 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 90%
2001 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2001 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2001 Population Connection - Positions 100%



Employment and Affirmative Action

2007 National Employment Lawyers Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 83%
2005-2006 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90%
2005-2006 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 77%
2003-2004 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90%
2003-2004 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Association for the Self-Employed - Positions 0%
2003 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 100%
2003 United Auto Workers - Positions on Workplace Rights 92%
2003 Workplace Fairness - Positions 80%
2002 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 78%


Energy

2007 League of Women Voters - Energy Score 100%
2006 American Wind Energy Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 75%
2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 67%


Environment

2009 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 100%
2008 Environment America - Positions 90%
2007-2008 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 58%
2007 League of Conservation Voters - First Session Score 73%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 100%
2006 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2005-2006 American Lands Alliance - Positions 100%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 82%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 95%
2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 66%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Lands Alliance - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2003-2004 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 92%
2003-2004 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 92%
2003 American Lands Alliance - Positions 86%
2003 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 89%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 90%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 60%
2001-2002 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 88%
2001-2002 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 77%
2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 100%


Foreign Affairs

2009-2010 ACT! for America - Positions 0%
2009-2010 Council for a Livable World - Positions 0%
2008 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions on Armenian American Issues A-
2008 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score A
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 62%
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 37%
2008 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental Spending Score 67%
2007 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score A+
2007 Council for a Livable World - Positions 86%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 83%
2007 Peace Action West - Positions 88%
2007 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur A+
2007 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Positions on Iraq War Amendments 75%
2006 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score A+
2006 Latin America Working Group - Positions 33%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 62%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 35%
2006 Peace Action - Positions 56%
2006 Peace Action West - Positions 56%
2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur A+
2005-2006 Council for a Livable World - Positions 75%
2005-2006 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 92%
2005-2006 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 75%
2005-2006 Population Action International - Positions on Reproductive Health 100%
2005 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score B+
2005 Latin America Working Group - Positions 50%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 66%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 29%
2005 Peace Action - Positions 89%
2005 PeacePAC - Positions 100%
2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50%
2004 Latin America Working Group - Positions 25%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 41%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 58%
2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 67%
2004 Peace Action - Positions 75%
2003-2004 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 88%
2003-2004 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 60%
2003 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 89%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 79%
2003 Peace Action - Positions 100%
2003 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2002-2003 Citizens for Global Solutions - Positions 50%
2002 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 50%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 27%
2001-2004 Council for a Livable World - Positions 75%
2001-2002 American Foreign Service Association - Positions 81%
2001-2002 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50%
2001 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 77%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 61%
1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 56%


Government Operations
2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Lifetime Score 100%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2007-2008 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 50%

2007 National Employment Lawyers Association - Positions 100%
2007 National Taxpayers Union - Fiscally Conservative Score F
2007 National Taxpayers Union - Fiscally Conservative Score F
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties Score 0%
2007 Republican Liberty Caucus - Positions on Personal Liberties 26%
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2007 The Club for Growth - Positions 11%
2006 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2006 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 88%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2005-2006 Citizens for Tax Justice - Positions 80%
2005-2006 Population Action International - Positions on Reproductive Health 100%
2005 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2005 National Criminal Justice Association - Positions 75%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2005 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 50%
2005 United States Public Interest Research Group - Positions 100%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 60%
2003-2004 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2003 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2003 State PIRGs Working Together - Positions 81%
2002 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 Taxpayers for Common Sense - Positions 55%
2001-2002 American Bar Association - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - Positions 100%
2001 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%


Guns
2007 Gun Owners of America - Positions on Gun Rights F-
2006 Gun Owners of America - Positions 0%
2006 National Rifle Association - Candidate Positions on Gun Rights 0%
2005 Gun Owners of America - Positions 0%
2003-2004 Gun Owners of America - Positions 0%
2003 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Lifetime Score 100%
2003 Gun Owners of America - Positions on Gun Rights F-
2003 Gun Owners of America - Positions 0%
2002 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Lifetime Score 100%
2001-2002 Gun Owners of America - Positions on Gun Rights 0%


Health and Health Care
2008 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2008 National Association of Social Workers - Positions 100%
2008 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2007-2008 AIDS United - Positions 100%
2007-2008 American Hospital Association - Positions 100%
2007-2008 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions 14%
2007-2008 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2007-2008 St. Joseph Health System - Positions 100
2007-2008 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2007 American Academy of Family Physicians - Positions 100%
2007 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2007 Association of University Centers on Disabilities - Positions 100%
2007 League of Women Voters - Children's Health Issues Score 100%
2007 National Association of Social Workers - Positions 100%
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2006 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2006 National Association of Social Workers - Positions on Professional Advocacy 100
2006 Parkinsons Action Network - Positions 100%
2006 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2005-2006 American Academy of Emergency Medicine - Positions 50%
2005-2006 American Hospital Association - Positions 67%
2005-2006 American Nurses Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Association for Addiction Professionals (formerly National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors) - Positions 100%
2005-2006 National Breast Cancer Coalition - Positions 80%
2005-2006 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions 93%
2005-2006 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 0%
2005-2006 St. Joseph Health System - Positions 60%
2005 American Public Health Association - Positions 80%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2004 Parkinsons Action Network - Positions 100%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Breast Cancer Coalition - Positions 100%
2003 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 100%
2003 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2003 Global AIDS Alliance - Positions 100%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2002 Pennsylvania State Nurses Association - Positions 100%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Association of Social Workers - Positions 88%
2001-2002 National Breast Cancer Coalition - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - Positions 100%
2001 AIDS United - Positions 100%
2001 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 100%
2001 American Medical Association - Positions 100%
2001 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2001 National Breast Cancer Coalition - Positions 100%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2001 The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Positions 100%
2001 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
1996-2003 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Positions 100%
1995-2004 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions 100%


Immigration

2007-2010 National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute - Positions 91%
2006 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 88%
2005-2006 Federation for American Immigration Reform - Positions 50%
2005-2006 Iranian American Political Action Committee - Positions 100%
2005 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 80%
2005 National Council of La Raza - Positions 100%%
2003-2004 National Hispanic Leadership Agenda - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Hispanic Leadership Agenda - Positions 88%
2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 100%


Judicial Branch

2007-2008 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 50%
2007 National Employment Lawyers Association - Positions 100%
2006 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 88%
2005 National Criminal Justice Association - Positions 75%
2001-2002 American Bar Association - Positions 100%


Labor Unions
2009 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Lifetime Score 94%
2008 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 100%
2008 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Lifetime Score 94%
2008 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2008 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Lifetime Score 98%
2008 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 75%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2008 Utility Workers Union of America - Positions 100%
2007-2008 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Positions 94%
2007-2008 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions 14%
2007-2008 National Farmers Union - Family Farm Advocacy Score 100
2007-2008 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2007 American Federation of Government Employees - Positions 77%
2007 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 100%
2007 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2007 Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers - Positions 100%
2007 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2007 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 50
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2007 United Auto Workers - Positions 85%
2007 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers - Positions 67
2007 Utility Workers Union of America - Positions 100
2006 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 93%
2006 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2006 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 75%
2006 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 60%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2006 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 75%
2006 United Auto Workers - Positions 85%
2005-2006 American Road and Transportation Builders Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Positions 75%
2005-2006 National Farmers Union - Positions 83%
2005 American Federation of Government Employees - Positions 83%
2005 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 93%
2005 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 88%
2005 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2005 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2005 International Sleep Products Association - Positions 0%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2005 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2005 United Auto Workers - Positions 93%
2005 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers - Positions 84%
2004 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 100%
2004 American Postal Workers Union - Positions 100%
2004 Communications Workers of America - Positions 100%
2004 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2004 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 83%
2004 United Auto Workers - Positions 110%
2003-2004 American Federation of Government Employees - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Road and Transportation Builders Association - Positions 88%
2003-2004 Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers - Positions 62%
2003-2004 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Positions 79%
2003-2004 National Farmers Union - Positions 67%
2003 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 85%
2003 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2003 Communications Workers of America - Positions 100%
2003 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2003 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 71%
2003 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Positions 73%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2003 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2003 United Auto Workers - Positions on Workplace Rights 92%
2003 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers - Positions 67%
2002 American Federation of Government Employees - Positions 100%
2002 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 92%
2002 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2002 Communications Workers of America - Positions 86%
2002 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2002 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 50%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2002 United Auto Workers - Positions 102%
2002 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers - Positions 72%
2001-2002 American Postal Workers Union - Positions 100%
2001-2002 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Positions 92%
2001-2002 National Farmers Union - Positions 90%
2001 American Federation of Government Employees - Positions 100%
2001 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 100%
2001 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) - Positions 100%
2001 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2001 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2001 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2001 United Auto Workers - Positions 93%
2001 United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers - Positions 72%
2001 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
1999 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - Positions 85%


Liberal

2008 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 70%
2008 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 70%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 88%
2008 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 82%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 91%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 62%
2007 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 75%
2007 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 75%
2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2007 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 82.8%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 83%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 87%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 77%
2007 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions on Social Justice and Peace 70
2007 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions on Social Justice and Peace 70
2006 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2006 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 80%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 62%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 63%
2006 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 70.2%
2006 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 77%
2006 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 77%
2005-2006 Campaign for America's Future - Energy Score 100%
2005-2006 Campaign for America's Future - Energy Score 100%
2005 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 100%
2005 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 100%
2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2005 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 66%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 83%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 84%
2005 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 80%
2005 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2005 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2004 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2004 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 82%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 58%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 63%
2004 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 71%
2004 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 71%
2003 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2003 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2003 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 90%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 85%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 79%
2003 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 89%
2003 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2003 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2002 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2002 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2002 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 82%
2002 National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 87%
2002 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 95%
2002 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 67%
2002 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 67%
2001-2002 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2001-2002 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2001-2002 People for the American Way - Positions 92%
2001-2002 People for the American Way - Positions 92%
2001-2002 Radical Middle - Positions 50%
2001 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2001 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2001 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 98%
2001 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 98%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 61%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 70%


Marriage, Family, and Children

2007 American Academy of Family Physicians - Positions 100%
2007 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 70%
2007 League of Women Voters - Children's Health Issues Score 100%
2007 Population Connection - Positions on Population Stabilization 100%
2006 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 90%
2006 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Population Action International - Positions on Reproductive Health 100%
2005 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 100%
2005 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2004 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 93%
2003-2004 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2003 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2003 National Network for Youth - Positions 100%
2003 Population Action International - Positions 100%
2003 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2002 American Family Voices - Positions 100%
2002 Population Connection - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Humane Association - Positions 86%
2001-2002 National Parent Teacher Association - Positions 90%
2001 National Youth Advocacy Coalition - Positions 100%
2001 Population Connection - Positions 100%


Senior Citizens
2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Lifetime Score 100%
2008 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2008 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2007 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 91%
2006 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2006 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 94%
2005-2006 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2005 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2005 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2004 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2004 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2003-2004 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2003 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2003 Leading Age - Positions 89%
2003 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2002 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2002 National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - Positions 100%
2002 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - Positions 100%
2001 Alliance for Retired Americans - Positions 100%
2001 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions 100%


Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

2007-2008 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 95%
2005-2006 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 89%
2003-2004 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 88%
2001-2002 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 100%
2001 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 100%
2001 National Youth Advocacy Coalition - Positions 100%


Social

2008 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 70%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 91%
2007-2008 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 50%
2007-2008 Secular Coalition for America - Positions on Secular Issues A-
2007-2008 St. Joseph Health System - Positions 100
2007 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 75%
2007 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 70%
2007 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions on Middle Class Advocacy 100
2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2007 National Employment Lawyers Association - Positions 100%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 77%
2007 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions on Social Justice and Peace 70
2007 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions on Social Justice and Peace 70
2006 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 88%
2006 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2006 Americans United for the Separation of Church and State - Positions 100%
2006 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 90%
2006 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 50%
2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2006 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 77%
2006 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 77%
2006 Secular Coalition for America - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Campaign for America's Future - Energy Score 100%
2005-2006 St. Joseph Health System - Positions 60%
2005 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 100%
2005 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 100%
2005 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2005 Mennonite Central Committee - Positions 89%
2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005 National Association of Social Workers - Positions on Professional Advocacy 100
2005 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2005 National Criminal Justice Association - Positions 75%
2005 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2005 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2004 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2004 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2004 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 86%
2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 82%
2004 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 71%
2004 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 71%
2003-2004 ACT! for America - Positions 50%
2003-2004 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Campaign for Working Families - Positions 5%
2003-2004 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 100%
2003 American Humane Association - Positions 100%
2003 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2003 Drum Major Institute for Public Policy/TheMiddleClass.org - Positions 100%
2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 85%
2003 National Network for Youth - Positions 100%
2003 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2003 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 100%
2002 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2002 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 82%
2002 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 67%
2002 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - Positions 67%
2001-2002 American Bar Association - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Humane Association - Positions 86%
2001-2002 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2001-2002 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 95%
2001-2002 People for the American Way - Positions 92%
2001 Americans for Democratic Action - Positions 95%
2001 Children's Defense Fund - Positions 100%
2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2001 National Committee for an Effective Congress - Positions 98%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy Score 70%
2001 National Youth Advocacy Coalition - Positions 100%

2001 The John Birch Society - Positions 5%


Technology and Communication

2007-2008 Information Technology Industry Council - Positions 100%
2007 Computer & Communications Industry Association - Positions 79%
2007 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Information Technology Industry Council - Positions 50%
2005-2006 National Electrical Contractors Association - Positions 33%
2005 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2004 Communications Workers of America - Positions 100%
2004 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Information Technology Industry Council - Positions 67%
2003-2004 National Electrical Contractors Association - Positions 42%
2003 Communications Workers of America - Positions 100%
2003 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2002 Communications Workers of America - Positions 86%
2002 Information Technology Industry Council - Positions 50%
2002 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Information Technology Industry Council - Lifetime Score 50%
2001-2002 National Electrical Contractors Association - Positions 42%
2001 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Positions 100%



Trade

2003-2004 The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score 0%
2003-2004 The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score 56%
2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 60%
2002 Emergency Committee for American Trade - Positions 0%
2001-2002 The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score 13%
2001-2002 The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score 25%
2001-2002 USA Engage - Positions 40%


Transportation

2009 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 0%
2008 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 75%
2007 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 50
2007 United Auto Workers - Positions 85%
2006 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 60%
2006 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 75%
2006 United Auto Workers - Positions 85%
2005-2006 American Road and Transportation Builders Association - Positions 100%
2005 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2005 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2005 United Auto Workers - Positions 93%
2004 American Postal Workers Union - Positions 100%
2004 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2004 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 83%
2004 United Auto Workers - Positions 110%
2003-2004 American Road and Transportation Builders Association - Positions 88%
2003 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 71%
2003 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2003 United Auto Workers - Positions on Workplace Rights 92%
2002 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 50%
2002 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2002 United Auto Workers - Positions 102%
2001-2002 American Postal Workers Union - Positions 100%
2001 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers - Positions 100%
2001 Transportation Communications Union - Positions 100%
2001 United Auto Workers - Positions 93%


Unemployed and Low-Income

2007-2008 RESULTS - Positions 77%
2006 Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) - Positions 75%
2005-2006 RESULTS - Positions 89%
2003-2004 Bread for the World - Positions 100%
2003-2004 The Partnership for the Homeless - Positions 100%
2002 American Family Voices - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Bread for the World - Positions 100%


Veterans

2007-2008 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America - Positions on Veterans Advocacy A
2006 Disabled American Veterans - Positions 80%
2006 The Retired Enlisted Association - Retired Military Benefits Issues Score 41%
2005 Disabled American Veterans - Positions 92%
2004 Disabled American Veterans - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions 50%
2003 The American Legion - Positions 50%
2001 Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions 92%

Women

2009-2010 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2009 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2007-2008 American Association of University Women - Positions 60%
2007-2008 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005-2006 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 83%
2005-2006 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90%
2005-2006 National Organization for Women - Positions 96%
2005 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2005 National Organization for Women - Positions 100%
2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 66%
2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2003-2004 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 77%
2003-2004 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 92%
2003 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2003 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 100%
2003 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 100%
2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%
2001-2002 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 78%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 77%
2001 American Association of University Women - Positions 100%
2001 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 100%
2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100%

Arts, Entertainment, and History
2002 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 70%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy Score 87%

[bigtree]

2. .

[Demsrule86]

91. Think about the courts before not voting for Hillary or any Dem candidate

Consider the courts before you choose to sit out 16 because you don't like the candidate...we have already seen the damage a one justice right wing court can cause...imagine if a GOP appoints a couple more...we might as well stay home for twenty years because it own't matter who we vote for ...the courts will govern.

[Chan790]

105. We can't afford another bad Democrat like Hillary making appointments to the courts either.

Under Obama and Bill Clinton, the GOP President in the middle is not cogent to the point being made; under Barack Obama and William Jefferson Clinton SCOTUS moved more conservative than it was at the respective outsets of their terms as they replaced liberal Justices with pro-business more-moderate Justices like Elena Kegan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer. Hillary is more conservative economically and militarily than either Bill or Obama, demonstrated not merely by her laid-out positions but by the actual policies she implemented at State and voted for as a US Senator.

If your concern is the courts and you're worried about pro-business anti-public rulings...Clinton is likely to be as bad as any Democrat could be. The only reason one would look to the courts and be pro-Hillary is if one were in favor of a conservative SCOTUS that happens to be pro-choice and pro-marriage equality while reliably right-wing otherwise across-the-board and especially on economic issues.

[nomorenomore08]

126. If the lesser of two evils is your only realistic option, what do you do?

Of course there's no definitive answer to that question.

[conservaphobe]

3. Good enough for me.

No matter how many labels the extremists try to stick on her, I do not fear a future with her as POTUS.

In fact, I welcome it.

[roguevalley]

14. I do. Bill Clinton advised McCain during his Presidential campaign. They are a twofer.

fear them both.

[JDPriestly]

41. Please see my post #35 -- campaign donatinos of three possible contenders for the Democraticn

nomination.

[msongs]

4. liberal republican maybe nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. No

She's centre-right, hawkish on foreign policy, neoliberal on trade policy, authoritarian on the issue of the NSA and the surveillance state. There are plenty of other potential candidates who are pro-worker, pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights and pro-woman who I'd feel considerably more comfortable with.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I wonder what kind of rift she must have had with her husband if she is a New Deal liberal?

you know NAFTA, GATT, Telecommunications Act, "Welfare Reform," Glass–Steagall Act and loads more. In many ways more of a Reaganite than Reagan. I wonder how they can stand each other?

[octoberlib]

7. Dynasties aren't my thing. I won't vote for her in the primaries.

[Ron Green]

8. I knew there were a lot of lobbying and pressure groups, but

I had no idea it was like this. This country is screwed. Oh, and Ms. Clinton does not have my support.

[bigtree]

9. that's a strange way to look at it

. . . criticizing orgs. like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, National Breast Cancer Coalition, Children's Defense Fund, National Organization for Women, National Council of La Raza, or even the unions as 'pressure groups'?

Heh.

[roguevalley]

16. how do you have an 86% rating with the ASPCA? JEez. I'm poor and animal charities

and groups along with old people have my last breath and dime. Rich people are dumb asses. Truly.

[NCTraveler]

82. I support the right to lobby 100%. Shame you don't.

Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization. Truly a shame you have been blinded to the great benefits of lobby groups.

"This country is screwed." Because we can create groups larger than one individual, fund and have a voice in the group of our choice, and have the power of that group petition congress and the white house. I have never understood the mindset you have that lobby groups are inherently bad.

[merrily]

10. Hmm. Way NOT to encourage anyone to vote for Hillary?

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2014, 04:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Something seems off. Anyway.....

Saying someone is a liberal US Senator is not saying much.

No liberal would have worked for Goldwater or been well-connected enough in Republican circles as a student to have tickets to the Republic National Convention. (Yeah, yeah, I know, she was young then. So were a lot of other Democrats who didn't work for Goldwater or attend Republican National Conventions, but, wait! There's more.)

No liberal would have co-founded the DLC, which got seed money from the Koch's and sought to distinguish itself from Democrats like FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

No liberal would have traveled with Al From to promote it abroad, to people like Blair, Bubba's British poodle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From

Recommended as a liberal why?

For her work in a corporate law firm? For her seat on the board of one of the most "un-liberal" corporations in the US at that time?

She got recommended for Civil Rights? Why?

For the "racially-tinged" primary she ran against Obama in 2008? For claiming "hard working white people" as her constituency? (This is NOT a continuation of the Obama Hillary PUMA wars. She and her supporters went racial which is a separate issue from whether she or Obama was the superior candidate in 2008.)

For comparing being a US Senator while Republicans were in the majority to being a slave on a plantation?

Recommended as a liberal, why?

For saying during the 2000 primary that she and McCain were ready for that 3 am phone call, but Obama was not? (Lieberman was the only other Democratic politician to compare McCain favorably to Obama on any issue.)

For making a speech in favor of the Iraq War Vote?

(Bear in mind that her only voting record is her Senate record.)

Recommended as a liberal, why? For her association with the uber conservative and, IMO, weird, religious right organization, The Family?

Yes she is a pro-choice candidate. Yes, she is more liberal than, say, Rubio. Yes, she seems determined to run more to the left than she did in 2008, but that is no surprise. In 2008, she was beatenby someone who was perceived as running to her left. (It doesn't matter if that perception was correct or not. It matters what voters perceived.) Also, after 2008, wealth inequity became a huge issue in the U.S. So, as I said, no surprise that she is running more to the left. (How people choose to run don't impress me much anymore, especially if the way they run is different from their history.)

But, Hillary has never has been a liberal and she still isn't.

I am not impressed by a list of organizations. Let's cite all her liberal votes and all liberal policies--pre-2008-- that were not culture war issues. Let's cite every time she went more liberal than the Senate Democratic caucus did.



ETA: I am not impressed by lists, period. If I were to take a list seriously, I'd have to note, though,, that some of the percentages about how liberal her policies allegedly are on the above list are pretty damned low anyway.

[Amonester]

11. I think a majority of DUers will not vote for her in the primary, but...

DU probably will not decide the overall outcome and that she will be the nominee (if the national trend keeps on doing great for her).

[merrily]

15. No self-fulfilling prophesies, please. I've been hearing those since October 2012,

including from people who watched her impressive lead and self-fulfilling prophesies sink like a stone once the 2008 primary actually got under way (that is, more officially under way than the primary race she's been running since at least 2000.)

And the trend is not all for her, either. Her book tour has not been all positive for Hillary.

As far as DU not determining the primary, non sequitur. No one said it would. I responded to an OP claiming she was a liberal. There's plenty of time to talk about the general election after the primary.

[JDPriestly]

42. See my post #35 re: her campaign donors compared to other possible candidates.

The contrast is quite striking.

[Metric System]

32. If you're holding her Goldwater teen years against her then I assume Warren is completely off the

table as a Presidential option for you as well.

[merrily]

38. Interesting. Your only reaction to everything in my post is

whether Warren is off the table for me, when nothing in my post (or the OP) was about me or Warren.

Isn't the issue of this thread whether Hillary is a liberal or not?

[Scuba]

61. They're terrified of Elizabeth.

[merrily]

64. I guess that precludes discussion of facts about Hillary.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Warren was a Republican during Reagan and Bush 41, when they were viciously anti gay

they were racists, they were virulent anti choicers. Elizabeth Warren says she did not care about any of that, she only supported trickle down economics, which she thought was vastly superior to Democratic economic policy.
The fact that folks refuse to discuss this makes me dislike Warren, the refusing folks and frankly makes me disgusted at the entire Party. She was a Republican when Republicans wanted gay people to die. You feel that is not worth discussing. That's understood. Well understood.

[merrily]

96. Yes, I raised those facts on another board, maybe this one as well, when

I first encountered rhapsodizing about Warren early on. I would never refuse to discuss it in a rational context. e . But, this thread is about whether Hillary is a liberal or not, and my post listed quite a few things about Hillary besides her work in and for the Republican Party.

So, when the only comment a poster makes about that entire post of mine on whether Hillary is a liberal or not, is that I must have ruled out Warren, I find that odd, at best. So, no, my response to that is not going to be to discuss who I may or may not support in a Democratic primary, if anyone.

As you know, both Warren and Hillary became Republicans well before either party was welcoming of gays and before "trickle down economics" was a catch phrase.

According to wiki, Warren has said that she became a Republican because she thought that the Republican Party was better for the markets, but she no longer believes that.

Political affiliation

Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

On the other hand, in 1996, Bill Clinton signed DOMA and, when challenged during the 2008 primary by gays speaking of having felt betrayed by her husband, Hillary said that she thought they had done well by gays. And she certainly did not attempt to repeal DOMA while she was a Senator. Moreover, she has been associated with the Family, which is not exactly pro-gay, either.

ETA: But again, this thread is not about whether Warren is more anti gay than Hillary or vice versa. And it certainly is not about which of them, if either, I would support in a primary, assuming they ever both in the same primary.

[JDPriestly]

111. If you read her book, you learn why she changed, came from a conservative background,

researched why people go into bankruptcy, discovered a reality she had not recognized and became a liberal Democrat on economic issues.

It's the economy that is the biggest problem now.

Race, gender, all the other issues that plague us are related and engendered by the extreme economic inequality.

Slavery was about economic inequality. That's pretty obvious.

Segregation was about economic inequality. Separate schools for African-American children meant that they would not be able to compete in the white economy.

Even abortion is about economic inequality.

And when I speak about economic inequality, I do not mean to suggest that our economy should require or foster absolute equality. I am talking about evening the playing field for those who have the ability, the willingness to work hard and the character to achieve a better life. That's what I mean by equality. I mean removing the impediments for those who want to improve their lives and lessening the advantage that the well-born, the wealthy and well connected have from birth. Elizabeth Warren's ideas will achieve that goal without risking the destruction of our society or economy in my opinion.

[merrily]

130. Respectfully, if you are gay, you may not agree that the economy

is America's biggest problem, either now, or a decade or two ago.

Especially if you are gay and either employed or retired relatively comfortably, but unable to live in dignity, maybe not even in physical safety.

I am sorry that the starkest contrasts between the two largest political parties these days may be in the realm of the culture wars. However, I am not ground zero in those wars.

[JDPriestly]

138. Elizabeth Warren supports gay rights.

LGBT rights

She supports same-sex marriage, repealing DOMA, and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren

I think all Democrats do.

[merrily]

139. My intent was not to imply that Warren is anti-gay.

Or that you are. Far from it, on both counts. I responded to a specific comment that you made in your post to Blue. My post had nothing to do with Warren.

[eridani]

12. Pushing the TPP and being in favor or the Iraq war are not liberal, period.

Neither is cozying up to banksters and welfare "reform".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Precisely, no doubt Hillary has a 100% rating from Wall Street bankers. Some liberal . . . haaaahh!

[JDPriestly]

43. See my post #35.

Guess where Hillary gets her money. See my post #35.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Phenomenal post JD; should be reposted in every Hillary thread to remind everyone who's side she's on (hint: it's not the 99%).

[NanceGreggs]

13. She's an impressive woman.

She's also intelligent, well-informed, and politically savvy. I have a few problems with her - but nothing that would preclude her making a fine president.

If she's the nominee, (1) she can take my vote for granted, (2) I'll always vote for the candidate with the D behind their name, (3) party first, and (4) I want the candidate who can win.

That's four DU mortal sins right there. And I am unrepentant.




Note: I see the new Label-Makers have arrived, and the kids are goin' wild.

[merrily]

17. Whether or not she is impressive is a different issue from whether she is a liberal.

If she's the nominee, (1) she can take my vote for granted, (2) I'll always vote for the candidate with the D behind their name, (3) party first, and (4) I want the candidate who can win.

That's four DU mortal sins right there. And I am unrepentant.

Those are not DU mortal sins. To the contrary, most DU posters have said they will vote for her if she is the nominee. And that is premature anyway. The primary has not even begun officially.

[NanceGreggs]

18. You've missed the point.

Entirely.

[LWolf]

99. No.

The resolution was not whether or not HRC is "impressive." It was not about party loyalty oaths. It declared HRC to be a liberal, which she is not.

YOU missed the point entirely. She's not a liberal. THAT's the point.

What you do with that information is beside the point.

[NanceGreggs]

120. Well, thank you very kindly ...

... for not only telling me how to respond to an OP, how to respond to another poster who clearly missed MY point, and for going that extra mile to tell me what my opinion should be.

I didn't respond to the OP about whether HRC is "liberal" or not, simply because I don't play these ridiculous and totally pointless labeling games.

"She's not a liberal. THAT's the point. What you do with that information is beside the point."

First of all, what you have stated there is your opinion; it is not information.

Secondly, these graphs, pie-charts, PowerPoint presentations, grids, land surveys, ancient sea maps, Magic 8 balls, Candyland boards, and whatever other bullshit measures people keep coming up with to "prove" where a politician stands, are as laughable as they are worthless.

So go play leftier-than-thou with those who think it a productive pastime.

[LWolf]

148. But that WAS the point of the OP,

which is what I was pointing out to you. Your point is what it is, but does not address the point made by the OP. It's not on topic.

You're welcome.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. They might be DU mortal sins but, that is the GOP strategy and that is how they win.

they back winners.

we would do well to take a lesson from their playbook.

Having said that, Hillary is not my first choice and I too, dislike dynasties.

2014 first.

GOTV.

[merrily]

20. Rethugs back winners? Not lately. In 2008 and 2012, they tried to back

anything that had a pulse, from clowns like Cain and Perry to pure evil like Gingrich.

But, I agree. 2014 first.

And, after that a Presidential primary, primaries supposedly being the one time we get to have a voice.

After the Presidential primary is plenty of time to talk about the general.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. I understand about the national level and yes things are changing but those four rules that Nance

quoted come straight out of the GOP playbook and it is how they won for years before.

[merrily]

24. Before Obama, we had Bush and before Bush Clinton.

And before Clinton, Reagan and before Reagan, Carter.

At the Presidential level, the parties have pretty much alternated for decades. And, as I posted earlier, their primary voters don't seem to have stuck by it lately. They abandoned the more obvious losers only after they had utterly befouled themselves.

Maybe, at the Presidential level their playbook is outdated, if indeed it ever resulted in winning for years for them.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. you left out a Bush I think. Also there are a lot of campaigns besides Presidential.

local, state levels.

37 Richard Nixon, R
38 Gerald Ford, R
39 JimmyCarter, D
40 Ronald Reagan, R
41 George H. W. Bush, R
42 Bill Clinton, D
43 George-W-Bush,R
44 President Barack Obama, D

Are you saying that this is NOT a strategy used by the GOP even if it has not always worked?

[merrily]

26. We are talking here about Hillary for Pres., not other elections.

Are you saying that this is NOT a strategy used by the GOP even if it has not always worked?

I think you know the answer to that question. But, let's assume it was a strategy at the Presidential level--and, again, Presidential level is what is relevant to Hillary. So what? Unless it works more than 50% of the time--better than a coin toss--why should Democrats feel bound by it? Indeed, why should anyone feel bound by it? (Also I assume we are talking RNC, not Republican voters?)

As far as leaving out Poppy's one term, yes I did. I'm sorry for my error and appreciate your correcting it. However, as to the topic, I think Poppy's election had a lot more to do with Reagan's popularity than with any strategy employed by the GOP in that election.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. I agree with Nance, point. you missed it entirely. First off. Hillary has not declared so it is

a moot point at this juncture.

and I am really sorry but, the rest of your post makes no sense to me.

I don't know what your strategy is.

[merrily]

28. Hillary's failure to declare so far does not affect anything I've posted on this thread.

Her failure may be coyness or she may not intend to run and is just having fun. Either way, she is not a liberal and it's too early to discuss the general, anyway. When all the "ifs" in your post downthread have been resolved, that will be plenty of time to discuss who we are voting for in the general.

You may not know my strategy because that was never the topic of this thread or any post on it. So, it never came up.

But, my strategy for what? 2014? The 2016 Presidential primary?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. good lord. no shit.

I don't know if you talked over, around or under me but, by jove, you sure did talk about something.

Personally, I don't think she will declare but, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

[merrily]

30. All I did was respond to things you said in your posts.

That's what I talked about.

If you had wanted to know what my strategy is, all you needed to do was ask. However, you never did. You did not even mention the subject of my strategy until your Reply 27. And, when I asked you to be more specific as to my strategy for what, so I could reply to that, you tacitly declined.

So, I have to conclude that your issue is not my strategy at all.

I guess my responding to the points you actually did raise in your posts was not satisfactory to you. Not sure I can remedy that.

As far as Nance's point that I allegedly missed: According to you, her point that Democrats should, in the next Presidential, follow a GOP playbook that cannot be shown to have succeeded in recent decades.

[NanceGreggs]

21. I understand what you mean about "dynasties".

But the other side of that coin is that she has as much right to run for the office as anyone else, despite her husband having held it previously.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. agreed. She is a person in her own right and if she: first off, declares and runs and

second, if she wins the primary, she will have my vote in the general.

A lot of ifs there.

[joshcryer]

34. This is a point lost on so many.

I only condition that on there being a robust primary. If she continues the inequality rhetoric (and I don't use that word diminutively, that's what politicians do; speak rhetoric) then it will be an easy primary for her, but we'd have heard a lot of voices on all sides.

If there is no primary I will not support her and I will stop posting to DU. This is unbelievably unlikely to happen as the entire platform is created by the primary process. But there are some in the party who want a superdelegate chosen candidate. That shall not happen.

[JDPriestly]

45. See my post #35. Apparently her donors don't think she is all that liberal.

[BuelahWitch]

84. How can you vote for her? You're a Canadian. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

102. No, I'm an American citizen ...

... living in Canada. And I vote.

[minivan2]

31. Could'nt of said it better myself

I won't vote for her during the primaries, if she runs. But come general election, I'll vote for her because the repubs have Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush. For the DUers claiming not to vote for her, stop lying, you've voted for dems for all elections so why not this one?

[joshcryer]

33. Well yeah.

She's a hawk foreign policy wise and she is a social democrat (ie, she supports regulated capitalism and a social safety net).

This is not left wing enough for the purists. She must be a die hard communist for her to be worthy.

You will see the rhetoric being lifted, btw this will be right wing populist rhetoric, that she is for corporations and capitalism and whatnot. And that womens rights, LGBT rights, they aren't as important. We're already seeing it.

[JDPriestly]

36. Check mu post #35. It lists the donors for the Senate races of Hillary and Elizabeth Warren.

You decide.

Personally, I think we can and must do better than Hillary Clinton. Doesn't mean Hillary is a terrible person. Just means that we have much better candidates from which to choose.

[joshcryer]

39. The vote is the only thing that matters.

It literally is the only thing that matters.

And Warren is about as "left wing" as Third Way Mark Udall.

She voted against the Medical Device Tax, for one.

She refuses to co-sponser a lot of liberal legislation.

It's sad to see when rhetoric is elevated above the vote.

[JDPriestly]

35. Hillary's top donors (for a Senate race no less) tell the real story:

Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $645,994 $638,494 $7,500
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
Time Warner $408,996 $383,996 $25,000
More . . . .

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

Citigroup, Inc. and Goldman Sachs really like her. Are they now considered to be "liberal"?

Elizabeth Warren' s top donors for her Senate race.

1 EMILY's List $507,095 $507,095 $0
2 Moveon.org $448,517 $129,540 $318,977
3 Harvard University $312,300 $312,300 $0
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200 $76,200 $0
5 Boston University $73,700 $73,700

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

Each candidate ran for the Senate. Note the difference in to whom they owe their political debts. It's striking. I do not consider a person in political debt to banks to be a liberal. At least not at this time. Sorry. We are known by the company we keep.

On edit, here are Bernie Sanders' top donors:

1 UNITE HERE $15,000 $0 $15,000
2 Communications Workers of America $14,500 $0 $14,500
3 Service Employees International Union $11,000 $3,000 $8,000
4 American Assn for Justice $10,500 $500 $10,000
5 National Education Assn $10,400 $400 $10,000
6 American Crystal Sugar $10,000 $0 $10,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00000528&type=I

Those are just Bernie's top 6. Most of his donors are unions or union members. We can see from this who is liberal in the sense that they work for the people.

It's not that I am anti-capitalism or anti-corporations entirely. It's that we the people need to vote for people who will represent us and be on our side.

If you feel that someone who owes it to the banks as Hillary does represents you, be my guest. Personally, I want to vote for someone who is not on the political receiving end of the banks' largesse. Corporations are not supposed to give money except when it is in their interest. Make up your own mind, but be informed.

[B Calm]

40. Bingo!

[joshcryer]

44. Why wouldn't the financial industry support her?

You must note that these are individual contributions from employees in those corporations. Of course they'd support her because, she, like all Democrats, would bring a prosperous and stable market. Stable being the key word, because regulated capitalism can be rather stable. It's when you strip away the regulations that it becomes a farce.

Warren actually got a lot of small contributions, like 2/3rds which weren't even reportable, because they were so small. So in that vein she has a lot better grassroots (ie, lower middle class) support.

But these numbers tell a different story, one which we are unfortunately remiss to accept. The 2016 election is going to be a $2 billion election. There's no real getting around it with Citizens United and now Oligarchy United. Bernie and Warren are awesome speakers and I encourage them to run. They will be unable to make the kind of money necessary to usher in another Democratic President who can fix the SCOTUS and get Oligarchy United and Citizens United overturned.

Therefore the game theory suggestion would be to really hope Clinton runs and vote for her in the primaries and in the general election. And to donate tons.

[JDPriestly]

46. I am beyond game theory on this.

I understand game theory. It is amoral. To qualify as a liberal, you have to set game theory aside and consider morality. Hillary has cast some good, liberal votes, but her heart and soul belong to Wall Street and big business whether she likes it or not.

We need a president who is not beholden to the 1%, the bankers.

I cannot stomach another president who is liberal except on matters that concern the welfare of working people. Sorry. My morality just doesn't allow me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The TPP. The Pipeline (supported by the people in her State Department), the H1-B visas, her allt-too-close relationship with India (which I recognize is one of our good allies, but still .. . . .). There are just too many problems with a Hillary candidacy. On top of her problems, there is the legacy of Bill Clinton which will stick to her with great tenacity. NAFTA is a big betrayal to many American workers. Then there is the telecommunications act, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I could go on and on. And with each item I would list, her creds as a liberal would slide down, down, down.

We can do better than Hillary.

[joshcryer]

47. Game theory isn't amoral.

That's how people vote. Unfortunately, we have a first past the post, plurality vote system. People do in fact vote interests or potentials as opposed to desires.

Corporate contributors don't "beholden" a given candidate to them. This is a really sad and pathetic meme. Corporations are not people, and it is illegal for them to direct employees to contribute a certain way (and in fact we have prosecutions for owners of any company that attempts to do this).

And here's where your post reflects my original post #33 in this thread: "I cannot stomach another president who is liberal except on matters that concern the welfare of working people."

This is correct. You only want to usher in right wing populism. That is, we go after the bankers, but who cares about the gays, who cares about womens rights, who cares about all that, right?

The thing that is going to shock you is that Clinton will talk up an inequality platform. 2016 will be the time, the demographic shift is almost there (2030 whites are a minority; when you consider the woman vote, she gets it easily).

And the right wing populism continues with the disdain for India, the worlds largest actual practicing democracy. H1-B? Fix it by fixing the immigration rules. Let them actually stay. Oh wait, that's feeding into more right wing populist anti-immigration shit.

It's all about right wing populism, in the end. And that's just making me want to see Hillary Clinton run more than ever. And I don't even want her to run. Think about that one.

[Romulox]

53. I love your inventiveness with the language. Now bankers and their supporters are the NEW liberals.

All that stuff about the welfare of regular people = "RIGHT WING POPULISM"!

You are sure good at this. Very convincing stuff!

[joshcryer]

59. I am merely pointing out how the statistic is derived.

It is no shock that leading Democratic candidates, including Obama, attract bankers or those who work for them. They are individual contributions from people working for those corporations. Their "investment" is for who they think will best benefit them.

[Romulox]

60. I think you're failing to convince anyone--even yourself. I bet you'd feel silly saying it out loud

[joshcryer]

63. Yeah? Show me one corp telling their employees how to vote.

I'd be happy to see that as it'd be fascinating to report them to the FEC.

[Romulox]

65. Wall Streeters know on which side their bread is buttered. This is just a bad line of argument. nt

[joshcryer]

67. Not when the Republicans get more of them.

It's the rational "bettors" who bet for Democrats. The Republicans still get more employees donating to them, by far. Those are the irrational donators (or crony donators who believe the Republicans will open up new ways to exploit the markets).

[merrily]

133. They've gotten more subtle.

Used to be, "If so and so wins on Tuesday, don't bother coming to work on Wednesday."

Their desires and basic nature haven't changed. They are just more subtle.

I also love your faith in the FEC. After the 2008 election, only one candidate got criminally prosecuted and that was Democrat John Edwards, who was exonerated. Hillary got to simply give back her donations from China and McCain got to simply give back the money he got from his wife while using public funds. I don't think Obama got bothered at all, though I could well be wrong about that.

[merrily]

58. How people vote in primaries? We're still over a year away from a primary.

For someone who claims he or she doesn't want Hillary to run, you sound a lot like bigtree, who claims he or she does not want to encourage anyone to vote for Hillary in a primary.

[joshcryer]

62. There is speculation there will be no primary.

This is unacceptable and if that happens within the Democratic Party I leave DU as any other option means I get summarily banned for advocating against the party.

There will be a primary and I will advocate for the best candidate other than Clinton. I do not think that candidate will be Sanders but I encourage him to run. I would prefer Warren but I do not think she will run. I hope Reich runs as per his FB promise, but I will advocate for Wyden over Riech if Wyden chooses to run.

That said we don't know the primary makeup so I don't know what you're trying to indicate here.

[merrily]

68. No mystery. You said game theory is how people vote. I asked if you meant voting in

primaries or in generals. The make up of the primary doesn't affect my question.

As far as my comment about you and big tree, I have seen quite a few posts defending Hillary, but not a lot in favor of the politicians you and big tree profess to favor over Hillary in the primary (should she run, of course). The make up of the primary doesn't affect that observation, either.

I agree that there will be a primary, although a year ago, I wasn't at all sure of that. All indications then seemed to me to say that the PTB of the Party did not want a primary. I believe it has filtered back to them that voters are not going to accept that.

My question now is not whether there will be a primary, but whether there will be a kabuki primary.

[joshcryer]

71. In first past the post, plurality systems.

It doesn't matter if it's a primary or general election.

What defense do Warren, Sanders, Reich, Wyden, and other potentially left of Clinton candidates deserve here on DU? We all support candidates left of Clinton.

There will be a primary because the platform requires it. Only one leading Democrat that I know of is opposed to a primary. McCaskill.

If you think a primary consisting of Sanders, Warren, Reich, Wyden is kabuki, that's your own prerogative. I encourage all of them to run. If Clinton runs uncontested it will be a shame on the party.

[merrily]

128. I understand the system. My question went more to

more about what considerations people have, or should have, during a primary. Is it "lesser of two evils," (or least), as so many claim governs their vote in general elections, or the primary candidate they think is most likely to win the general, or do they vote for who they would really like to be President?

I used to choose the primary candidate I thought was most likely to win the general. I am not sure I am going to stick with that anymore, though. Among other things, I probably never arrived at that decision on my own, but, without realizing it, arrived at it with lots of help from the DNC and the media.

What defense do Warren, Sanders, Reich, Wyden, and other potentially left of Clinton candidates deserve here on DU?

As you know, that is not at all responsive to the comment in my post.

Again, I see people vigorously defending Clinton, to the point of battles, while claiming they really support another candidate. However, I see them defending Clinton a lot more than I see them supporting the candidate they claim to favor over Hillary. So, I am, um.... skeptical.

Besides, in my view, saying Sanders is really your candidate is like saying in 2004 that you endorse Lieberman for President over Kerry. That is what the DLC did, but everyone, especially the DLC, pretty much knew Lieberman would be out of the primary very quickly, whereupon the DLC endorsed Kerry.

We all support candidates left of Clinton.

Really?

I have to question how you could possibly actually believe that claim. As long as I've been at DU, Hillary's face has been an avatar in the posts of a number of posters, many posters, including you, bring out daggers at the hint of any criticism of Hillary, there is a Hillary forum on the board, etc.

[joshcryer]

132. I just don't like irrational Dem bashing.

And I like to bring in a more nuanced shade of gray type of view here. I mean, I point out America is capitalist and I get called all sorts of things and accused of all sorts of silliness. No one even addressed that we're likely going to need to raise $2 billion for 2016 in light of Citizens Oligarchy United.

I don't see why I should defend Sanders or Warren unless they're being unfairly bashed, and that never happens here, in fact, I think Warren in particular gets put on a pedestal, much like Obama did. And we see how that turned out. Have more realistic expectations, understand positions. Sanders is often used to bash Dems but he's a strong ally of Democrats, and I have found myself often correcting the record as it relates to Sanders and Democrats (the most recent example was his citation of an OMB report being completely misinterpreted).

[merrily]

134. Also not responsive.

I don't see why I should defend Sanders or Warren unless they're
being unfairly bashed, and that never happens here,

I didn't say you should defend them when they are not being "bashed." (For the third time,) I said I noticed you and others defending Hillary fiercely a lot more often than I saw you supporting the candidates you profess to prefer to Hillary.

If you support a candidate, you, well, affirmatively support them, not only defend them against "irrational" Dem bashing.

I have been very well aware of your fierce defenses of Hillary, but this thread was the first time I noticed that Sanders is supposedly your primary preference. Which, as I said, in terms of political realities (and not political positions) is a lot like saying in 2004 that you prefer Lieberman to Kerry.

[joshcryer]

137. I'm on record that I am not enthused about 2016.

It will take a spectacular candidate for me to fight for them. I fought in the Draft Gore movement and I fought hard for Dean. Both times I lost. I'm not going to waste my breath fighting, pumping, or otherwise jumping after a candidate that I don't believe is fully capable of winning.

I wrote: "There will be a primary and I will advocate for the best candidate other than Clinton."

I don't think Warren will run. Wyden won't run. Sanders might but he needs to get the ball rolling. Reich better run even if Clinton ramps up the inequality rhetoric as she is doing.

[merrily]

143. If Sanders runs, I fully believe it will be to move the

discourse left and not with the idea in his mind that he would actually win the primary. Then again, I freely admit that I have no mindreading skills. Just sounds a little like that to me from some of the comments that he has made.

Nonetheless, if he runs for any reason, I would support him strongly, as I did Obama in 2008. Sanders is not my 100% ideal candidate, but he is probably the closest thing I have seen in my lifetime.

Even if his objective were only to move the discourse left, what the fuck would be wrong with that? To me, that objective is worth all the financial, volunteer, etc. support I can possibly give and persuade anyone else to give.

[merrily]

144. P.S. finding it hard to buy that you will go to great lengths to defend Hillary

though you deny she is your candidate while you are reluctant to "waste your breath" posting in support of the candidate you supposedly do favor over Hillary.

I'm not going to waste my breath fighting, pumping, or otherwise jumping after a candidate that I don't believe is fully capable of winning.

Ah, there it is. I see. And, in your mind, Hillary is fully capable of winning? Winning the primary and the general? In your mind, who else is likely to win both who is also likely to run?

[joshcryer]

146. It's unfortunate you are so distrustful.

Clinton (like Obama) gets unfairly bashed with irrational sentiments. I will defend any Dems against those sentiments. Indeed, when Warren was bashed by Greenwald for not having time to answer a Palestine question, I came to her defense. In fact, you will find my defense throughout that thread.

Under the current potential scenarios available Clinton is the likeliest candidate. But that's not why I defend her. Again, it's merely about defending against irrational bashing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!! +10

[Romulox]

55. Those are **LIBERAL** multinational financiers.

Also, just bringing this up is rightwing in a way that I cannot explain or define any further. But I *did* want to say "rightwing populism" a few times to see if anything sticks.

[joshcryer]

69. Also known as fascism.

Because that's what right wing populism is, by definition.

[Romulox]

70. Nice one. Also, people who even *mention* Goldman Sachs are just like Hitler.

My goodness, but that schlock you sling is persuasive!

rightwing populism... Rightwing Populism. RIGHTWING POPULISM!!!!!!!!

It's just fun to say!

[joshcryer]

72. Struck a nerve, I see.

Good. You should be concerned about right wing populism. It's on the rise in Europe and the Libertarians are carrying water for the sentiments here in the US.

[Romulox]

76. Indeed. BULLSEYE! Bankers are the new "liberals", everybody else are FASCISTS!

Sorry to pull a sid, but your stuff is laughable...

[joshcryer]

78. Didn't say that.

But you carry on with the right wing populism. Good job.

[pampango]

86. They are buying access, but per the OP they are not buying votes.

Many big-money contributors play both sides of the partisan game so that they will 'have a seat at the table'. I would prefer that Warren be our presidential nominee. I expect that, if she is, big-money will swallow their pride and giver her donations (though not as much as they give to the GOP to defeat her). I expect she will accept their donations AND will not change her policies or sell her vote.

[Htom Sirveaux]

107. Really excellent point.

This money list makes it likely that when our corporate overlords come calling, it will be difficult or impossible for Hillary to resist their siren song.

[merrily]

131. She sat on the board of WalMart when it was not even

as embarrassed about itself as exposure has made it today.

They would not have to use a siren song.

[w4rma]

48. She's a sneaky calculating weasel who not only voted for the IWR but pushed for it behind the scenes

Also, I don't support dynasties, as a rule. I don't support Rockefeller Republicans or DLCers, as a rule. I trust her about as much as Republicans trust her. I remember how she treats and "rewards" grassroots Democratic campaigns. I remember that she put people like Rahm Emmanuel into power. I don't like how her supporters talk down to anyone who remembers her past. And she'll hurt Congressional Democratic chances, down ticket, because Republicans will line up in droves to vote against her.

[merrily]

57. But "these are not the droids you're looking for" worked so well

in Star Wars. Why can't you just accept that left is right, up is down and Third Way is not center right, but liberal?

Geesh, some people.

[nomorenomore08]

50. She's a centrist, with some relatively liberal views and some conservative ones.

I wouldn't say she's "an enemy of progressivism" but she certainly doesn't exemplify it either.

[merrily]

56. I don't think "progressive" and "liberal" are synonyms.

Both Obama and Clinton self-describe as progressives; and I think that is correct. As far as I know, neither self-describes as "liberal;" and I think that also is correct.

[nomorenomore08]

73. The distinction between the two can be tricky, I suppose.

Some use "progressive" to mean "left of liberal" but I don't think that's exactly correct either.

[merrily]

77. Neither Obama nor Hillary is to the left of liberals.

I think "progressive," as they use it, means something to the right of liberal, not to the left of liberal.

Basically, we need a new word. Desperately need one, IMO.

The word "liberal" is tied up with laissez faire corporatism outside the US (as if laissez faire corporatism exists these days (as opposed to corporate welfare, which does exist).

I don't think that is how anyone in, say, the US in the Fifities and Sixties understood the word "liberal, though. Nor was the word "progressive" used then as much as it is now. Like "New Democrat" progressive is usually used by politicians who are loathe to describe themselves as "liberal," "liberal" (as used in, say, the Sixties) being the direct opposite of "conservative."

[nomorenomore08]

85. Yeah, the meaning is quite subjective. I call myself a Social Democrat because that has a more

specific meaning than "liberal" or "progressive," even if I might be considered either of those. Basically, I believe in democracy, and I also believe in some form of socialism - and would even argue that true democracy is impossible without a degree of socialism.

[merrily]

122. Socialism may be another of those subjective words.

I didn't think it was, but I had a debate about the meaning with another DUer. We had different ideas of what it meant.

[nomorenomore08]

123. There are different degrees of it, just as there are different degrees of capitalism.

Most countries' economic systems are some sort of hybrid of the two.

[merrily]

125. It means government ownership of the means of production, not just

some government program. That is its meaning and dictonary definition.

If Obamacare were truly socialist, government would be owning the hospitals, hiring doctors, nurses and maintenance staff, etc.

When the word is used loosely, it brings to bear in a program about 70 years and trillions of dollars spent by the USA combating the left and discrediting the left at home and abroad.

[nomorenomore08]

127. That would be socialism in its purest form. I have my doubts about such a system

even if it can't be much worse than our current lassez-faire capitalism.

[merrily]

129. No, that would be socialism, period.

Many people have doubts about socialism, in part because of what I mentioned in my prior post--how much time, energy and money we've spend discrediting socialism.

Those doubts are exactly why the RW throws around the word "socialism" when social programs that have nothing to do with ownership of the means of production are at issue.

And exactly why I think the left should not also use the word incorrectly. So doing only hurts the left and helps the right.

I don't know when people began thinking that what they feels a word means is more correct than the dictionary meaning of the word. I think dictionary definitions are important if we are going to actually understand what we and others are saying, instead of only assuming we're communicating on the same page.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

[nomorenomore08]

140. I'm all for collective ownership of the essentials - education, health care, utilities, etc.

And I think the privatization craze is one of the worst things to happen to the modern Western world.

[merrily]

141. I am unsure how much socialism I am for, but I am for

using the word only when its dictionary definition is met.

No sense in the left doing the RWs work for them.


Come to think of it, the term "socialism for corporations" doesn't bother me all that much.

[nomorenomore08]

142. I guess that's why I say I'm a Social Democrat rather than a socialist per se.

And I don't think it's any coincidence that the social democracies of Western Europe have the highest living standards on Earth.

[merrily]

145. The US electorate may be ready.

I could be overly optimistic, but I think the pendulum may be starting to swing away from the center right types.


We have one long time Social Democrat Senator in Congress (albeit now running as an Indie) who may run for a Presidential nomination and one immensely popular Socialist on the Seattle city council and a few other socialists in lower offices around the country. Perceived extreme liberals, like DeBlasio, have been winning important offices without trying to soft pedal their liberality.

Even Hillary will supposedly campaign to the left of, well, Hillary. Whether anyone will buy it is another issue, but that word would not be spreading unless the strategists think that is what she will have to do in order to win. (No matter how many times they mouth or post the false meme that leftists cannot win elections.)


Real wages of American workers haven't improved much since the 1970s, which, coincidentally(?), was the last time a pre-DLC takeover Democrat was President. If people are satisfied with that as their status quo, that would be extremely disappointing. I think they want real, significant economic change but they don't know how to get it because neither of the two largest parties deliver it.

[nomorenomore08]

147. I hope so too. I think this country is desperate for real change. n/t

[LWolf]

109. I'd love a new word,

but it would only hold for so long before it got corrupted, like all the rest.

dlc=centrist=progressive="new democrat"=3rd way=neo-liberal

That last one is key. Neo-liberals claim "liberal" status because they are economically liberal. We need something that is socially but not economically liberal.

I sometimes use "left," but that's problematic, too. It can refer to anyone to the left of fascism, which includes a hell of a lot of folks right of the global center. It can also be used to marginalize us as "fringe." And, of course, it can also refer to actual leftists, which are fairly rare in the U.S..

The closest I've come is "leftist libertarian" from the political compass. I find their ratings to be pretty accurate, but much of DU does not agree, because their Democratic icons generally appear right of center as mildly to moderately authoritarian right.

[merrily]

112. See, and I don't think neo-liberals are economically liberal.

They are leftist on culture war issues--and sometimes only tepidly on culture war issues. But liberals don't brag about having ended "welfare as we know it."

It can also be used to marginalize us as "fringe."

I wouldn't worry about that one. Any word can, and WILL, be used to marginalize us as "fringe." The important thing is that we understand the word.

I agree with you that "progressive" is a term that the DLC re-invigorated, from the days of T. Roosevelt, when it meant the left wing of the Republican Party. But, I don't think many know that.

Look at this sub-thread alone. One poster said some understand to mean further left than liberals. You think it includes being economically liberal. I don't, unless "economically liberal" means "not as far right on money matters as Koch." So, basically, the word today means whatever someone thinks it means.

[LWolf]

117. Economic liberalism

is about unregulated economics. Free trade. Nafta, the TPP, etc.. Neo-liberals are those that can be liberal on some social issues, but oppose economic regulations. Laissez-faire. Here's a definition from

Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Economic_liberalism.html

There are more in-depth discussions about neo-liberalism out there; here's one:

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_short_history_of_neoliberalism_and_how_we_can_fix_it

[Dragonfli]

121. Progressive Policy Institute comes to mind

The Original DLC think tank for those that haven't been following the game too closely. (I do not mean to imply you as I am sure you are aware of them)

Since them I am a bit wary of banker bankrolled pols that self describe as "progressive"

[merrily]

124. Why I never call myself a progressive, by merrily

When the DLC first formally organized, Koch Industries donated to it and one of the Koch brothers had a seat on its Executive Council.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

(According to Jean Mayer of The New Yorker, this was about the same time as the Koch brothers began planning the Tea Party.)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations

The first two full-time employees of the DLC were Al From and Will Marshall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Marshall later founded the Progressive Policy Institute. It's web home page used to say something like, "Welcome to the Progressive Policy Institute, the place for pragmatic progressives."

I haven't checked lately, but the last time I checked, it no longer said that. Perhaps Tom Tomorrow got to PPI?



Anyway, PPI was founded in 1989, only a few years after official formation of the DLC. In 2003, Marshall, who is still President of PPI, signed the PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

How's that for progressive? How's that for pragmatic?

[merrily]

135. P.S. You may want to glance at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025278879#post124

[hobbit709]

52. I needed a laugh this morning.

Liberal? Compared to what?

[Romulox]

54. You shouldn't lead with your chin, bigtree. Hillary is no liberal, and it just makes her look bad

to pretend that she is.

[Scuba]

66. Hillary is about as liberal as Dick Nixon.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. If Hillary is a liberal, then I'm the King of England.

[LWolf]

108. And

Tricky Dick was more liberal than some neo-liberals currently holding office.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Neo.

Neoliberal.

[joshcryer]

83. What if...

[bowens43]

79. hillary is more of the same......clinton/bush/obama enough already

[Thinkingabout]

80. Positions on the issues

Hillary on the issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm

[NCTraveler]

81. I have said it many times here.

I truly hope we end up with someone other than Hillary who is worth voting for in the primary. I love Hillary but would like to have the opportunity to vote for someone who is more of an economic populist. That is what I would like. I stand with Hillary on almost every issue. That doesn't mean I can't want more.

[LWolf]

88. Nope.

Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal Democrat. Her donors and her record both reflect that.

Liberal and neo-liberal...two different dogs.

[progressoid]

94. Yep. And one of those dogs is a biter.

[merrily]

136. Yet, given deceptively similar names.

And then, there's "progressive," which apparently is like poetry. You can give it any meaning you like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025278879#post124

[LWolf]

150. Yes.

I simply remember that the DLC's think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute," and that says it for me.

Of course, when I get those political surveys online, they always seem to define "progressive" as "extremely liberal."

In reality, it's a different dog altogether. It means to want to change things. To move forward. There's no requirement that they be changes for the better, or moving in the best direction.

We let people manipulate meanings until a particular connotation sticks.

[merrily]

151. As opposed to all the political slogans that advocate not moving at all or

moving backward?

That's inspiring.

[LWolf]

152. lol

The question is, what are we moving toward?

Toward furthering corporatization and privatization, de-regulation, and further erosion of unions, public education, etc.? If that's the goal, and people are actively working to move us towards that, it's "forward" for them, even though it's backward for me. That's "progressive" for them.

[merrily]

153. On those issues, you are preaching to the choir.

It's, 40 things for Big Business and Big Brother; make a populist speech; forty things for Big Business and Big Brother; throw the public a bone.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Hidden in all that bulky blather is a trend Bigtree will not speak to...her ratings from Human

Rights Campaign actually get worse over time, 100% in 2000, more recently 85% which is of course indicative of her long, long term resistance to marriage equality, which she opposed until just few short months ago, which she now sort of kind of supports.
Like Warren, Clinton's anti gay past is unacceptable. Both of these women stood on the wrong side of history, preaching venom with their Republican pals against Democratic LGBT people and both did so for years and years. Unacceptable.

I wonder what the OP thinks of that downward trend in Hillary's LGBT support ratings? I think all the bulk of the post was supposed to hide those facts.

[bigtree]

90. It's not an endorsement, Bluenorthwest

. . . it's just an illustration..

I think that's a fair assessment of her position(s) on LGBT rights, reflected in a drop in support. Many of her ratings show progress, but I'm not going to disagree with you on that score.

As Vote Smart explains, it's not an accurate measure, but it is one guide to measuring where she stands in relation to other politicians, and while I don't think her slip in ratings on that issue to 85% is something to brag about, it certainly doesn't represent what I'd think would be a hostile attitude toward Hillary Clinton by that organization. I don't think they view her as an enemy to their cause, just not a perfect advocate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. She herself rejected the label 'liberal', in 2007

She preferred 'progressive', because it's a more 'American' word.

[rock]

93. I feel obliged to point out to those posters

that are dead set against Hilary are against a sure-fire Democrat being the next president and therefore I assume they would be pleased with a repiggie (ugh, pew, gag)! Of course this may make an ass of me and them.

[LWolf]

100. Well, you're correct about the ass of you part, anyway.

The primaries aren't even here yet. It's mid-term season.

It's also not surprising that many Democrats would be "dead set" against electing another neo-liberal, which is why they will oppose her with force in the '16 primaries...when and if she announces a candidacy.

They're called Republicans, and opposing HRC is not equivalent to being pleased with them. Juvenile name-calling and fallacious "points" don't have the effect you're going for.

[rock]

101. It may not be equivalent to being pleased with them

but to give up a nearly sure thing for a supposedly "better" candidate (one who is a lot less experienced and a lot weaker in gaining votes) is ... well now, I don't really need to complete that thought. Sorry, but the ass of me and the ass of you makes a complete set.

[LWolf]

106. Nope.

Nobody is currently running in the primaries. It's fallacious, again, to suggest, first, that HRC is a "sure thing." Beyond that, it's also fallacious to declare anyone who runs against her to be less experienced or weaker, since you don't know who will be in the field.

If you want to play, quit throwing fallacious crap at the wall hoping it will stick, and offer up something of substance.

Or not.

And...of me? Notice I haven't proposed a damned thing. Just pointed out the ragged holes in your reasoning.

[Maedhros]

110. If that "sure thing" is going to perpetuate anti-working-class policies,

then what have we gained?

[rock]

113. Would you like bush* or the equivalent (say bush#3)?

I'll answer that: no, you wouldn't; you would be glad to have gained nothing but still have a Democratic president.

[Maedhros]

115. I will vote for the candidate that best represents my values.

If that's a Democrat, great.

I will not vote for a Democrat who will perpetuate right-wing policies just because they have a "D" next to their name. I can't be held responsible for all the other people who do.

[LWolf]

118. Nothing.

Which is exactly why Democrats who oppose anti-working class policies should oppose nominating a neo-liberal.

A point which the "would you rather have <insert a demonic Republican here>??!!??!!!!!" army fails to understand or acknowledge.

[Maedhros]

119. One actual benefit to having a "demonic Republican" in the White House

is that Democrats would go back to opposing wars of choice, drone strikes on innocents and domestic surveillance by the NSA - rather than condoning them, as they do now.

We get these things regardless of which Party holds the Presidency. However we only seem to get criticism of these things when a Republican is in office.

[LWolf]

149. I've often had that thought.

It seems to be the only way Democrats actually oppose what they should.

[JDPriestly]

116. My conscience does not let me vote for Hillary.

Her stances, and Bill's stances, on economic issues, media consolidation, the banks, so many things are just morally offensive to me.

I want a 21st century Glass-Steagall bill.

If Hillary can't win without my vote here in California, she can't win anywhere. I have voted Democratic all my life, every election that took place when I was living in the US. But I cannot vote for Hillary. See my post #35 if you want to know why.

Hillary is not a big enough supporter of unions and working people. She would not attract so much money from Wall Street if she were.

Just today, Thom Hartmann announced that United Airlines is firing its unionized ticket takers at least in certain states and hiring minimum or near-minimum wage workers.

I want a Democrat in the White House who will call for the repeal of Taft-Hartey so that we once again have unions in the workplace that protect the workers' pay an other rights.

Hillary will not do the things that I believe we must do as a nation to right our course. The Republicans are more split than we are. This is our chance, probably our last chance to get a president who will truly speak up for the American people.

[Chathamization]

95. Well, she’s either 10/11 or 11/11 for Warren’s 11 progressive values

Granted, I didn’t find that list very impressive, but it seemed like a lot of people here did.

[L0oniX]

97. So the Third Way candidate is kinda cool after all.

[yurbud]

98. Hillary hired the same PR firm that does "the list" for Obama

[Htom Sirveaux]

103. That's great, D.C. institutions like her.

She even says a lot of the right things. The real question is: what would she actually do (if safely elected) about things that are very difficult to hold the president accountable on? I'm talking about things like secret trade negotiations, covert assassinations of American citizens, secret legal opinions authorizing massive domestic surveillance. What about the War on Drugs? Would she reschedule pot and expand medical research into it, or be stubborn, as Obama's administration has been?

Obama has proven that talk is cheap. Actual results can differ widely, especially on military issues and issues of deep concern to our corporate overlords.

[KamaAina]

114. A few of these concern me

2006 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 66%
2005 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 80% (Big Ag )

2005 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 35%
2001 United States Chamber of Commerce - Positions 43% Way too high.

2001-2002 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 60%
2001 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 50% Way too low, but unlike her LGBT record mentioned above, did improve with time.

2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 37%
2007-2008 The John Birch Society - Positions 18%
2006 National Journal - Composite Conservative Score 29.8%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy Score 35%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 35%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 41% Ouch.

2003-2004 The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score 56% Whoa!