If we're not willing to wait for substance in Hillary Clinton's

[MineralMan]

newly launched primary campaign, all we will have to talk about is logos and photos. Personally, I think we should wait for some substance, and then discuss that. This day has been full of silliness, in my opinion. But, that's just me. There's a long way to go, and we'll soon have some substantive statements to worry like a rawhide bone, I'm sure.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Substance? Can you imagine ANY republican candidate making a video highlighting support

for gay folk and minorities?

I cant

[MineralMan]

3. I can't imagine any Democratic candidate not

highlighting those things. Can you? The video did contain some substance. The logo did not. Neither did the campaign's choice of photos of the candidate.

Most of the threads today have been about the logo, for pete's sake. I thought the video was full of great stuff. Not too many threads about that, though, except to complain that some specific group wasn't included, or wasn't seen to be included.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Who needs to imagine? Every Democratic candidate in history until now has opposed equality and

Obama held rallies with Evangelical hate preachers and spent lots of time talking about how his God did not Sanctify those people and how God is in the mix when straight folks fuck and how LGBT people lack a 'spiritual quality' in our relationships. DU, by and large, supported him in of that. When he got elected, he picked Rick Warren to preside at his Inaugural days after Warren had equated LGBT relationships to incest and pedophilia, Obama refused to replace him, DU defended him, and the Inaugural became a tainted and divisive slap in the face to millions of Americans simply to honor the Profound Faith of Barack and Michelle, who I hope were satisfied with that display of smug contempt for those unlike themselves. No apology has ever been issued, implied or suggested, not for any of the many base insults puked forth by that campaign from pillar to post.

Not once in my life have I gotten to vote for a Democratic nominee who did not campaign speaking against my rights. Not once. It is the best sort of substance, after Obama 08, to be included without reservation from the very first moments of a campaign. It's refreshingly different, utterly unique and the first time ever.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes. Things have changed. That's a good thing.

Today, no Democratic candidate would think of excluding GLBT people. That's progress.

[cali]

2. I'm willing to wait. What I'd like to see within the coming weeks

is Hillary answering unscripted questions that haven't been pre-approved.

[MineralMan]

4. OK. I have no idea what will be asked, since nothing

has been asked. We'll see.

[William769]

5. Her campaign is not even 24 hours old.

I think she started the campaign great and is now on the road meeting people on the way to Iowa.

It has to start someplace.

Even when we get what people are clamoring for, then they will find fault with something else. We have seen it time & time again.

[MineralMan]

6. I suppose. It's too bad.

I know that everything she does is going to be attacked, at least from the right. I would hope that some people will be listening to what she says, though, and not just making pro forma attacks. That's my hope.

[B2G]

12. Please. Her campaign started 8 years ago,

possibly more.

[William769]

13. Really? due tell.

I would like to see her on the campaign trail all those years. Inquiring minds want to know!

[B2G]

14. Did you sleep through 2007?

[William769]

15. So I guess the answer is no then.

Thank's for playing and have a nice day.

[think]

7. The early tweet from Podesta regarding climate change & clean energy was a nice start

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2015/04/13/clinton-makes-climate-change-a-central-issue-for-2016/

[MineralMan]

9. I thought so, too. We'll hear more of her positions and plans

in the coming weeks. They'll all be worth discussing, I'm sure.

[Maedhros]

8. I'm pretty confident that I understand Hillary's position on the issues.

But I agree, quibbling over logos is silly.

[jeff47]

11. The point of Clinton's candidacy is that she has a lengthy track record.

We've got plenty of "substance" that she has put out over the past decades.

Why must we wait for a speech, and mindlessly believe it to be true, before discussing her track record?

[Jim Lane]

16. Exactly! She's not bound to her past positions, but she doesn't get a free Etch-A-Sketch, either.

We know that she's done some backpedaling on the Iraq War. That's better than if she were still defending her pro-war vote, but not as good as if she'd gotten it right the first time.

Even disregarding the marital relationship, she was a senior adviser to a Democratic President for eight years. If she now pronounces herself to be horrified by DOMA, NAFTA, welfare "reform", and repeal of Glass-Steagall, we have a right to ask for an explanation. For that matter, we have a right to ask whether she is horrified by those things or whether she still supports them.

We laughed at Mitt Romney, lurching away from the center to appeal to party activists in the primaries. I'll apply the same standard to Hillary Clinton.