You say "insider" like it's a bad thing.

[auntpurl]

I've just watched 8 years of President Obama fighting a Republican Congress at every turn to try to get anything done. One of the reasons I supported Hillary in 2008 was that she IS an insider. I thought Obama would struggle to do the back room wheeling and dealing that is the real wheel greaser in Washington. He got better at it as he went along, but it was an uphill battle.

Whomever our Dem nominee is, unless predictions are WAY off, they are going to be facing a Repub-controlled Congress of some configuration. So I want someone who can cross the aisle, someone who's served on committees, someone who has leverage and smarts and, yeah, CUNNING, to get some stuff DONE in the next 4 (8) years.

I've always assumed Washington was more like House of Cards than West Wing. Would that it WERE West Wing, but let's play the hand we've been dealt. It's a deeply divided place, just as the whole of the US is.

I WANT an insider. So I don't consider it an insult.

[HassleCat]

1. I don't want an insider.

Too many insiders, all wheeling and dealing. Not for us, not on behalf of the public interest, but strictly for their own gain. We get sell-outs, watered down legislation, etc.

[auntpurl]

7. Yes we do. I won't argue that. But that is how things work.

I'm a pragmatist (another word that's become an insult on DU of late). Revolution is unlikely (possible, but unlikely). I'm working with the hand I've got.

[HassleCat]

11. I understand, but your high card is the five of clubs.

[auntpurl]

14. Rather the five of clubs than the biggest joker in the pack - Trump! nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. Rape is just how things work too,

but you don't let it continue by voting for more rapists.

Our society has been raped by Wall Street and corporations; enabled by the politicians that they have bought and paid for.

You don't change that by voting for more rapists.

[auntpurl]

28. That is very offensive rhetoric. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Why? Are you a banker or corporate suit?

The truth hurts those who would rather hide it.

[auntpurl]

33. No, but I am a rape survivor.

I'd rather people didn't use enflaming, potentially triggering rhetoric in a civil political discussion. I don't have a thin skin about it or anything; I just think it's unnecessary.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. They are what they are.

Those that wish to hide that fact I find dubious at best.

[Gwhittey]

55. Correction

You are a survivor of sexual rape, his meaning is rape in since that rape is "The act of pillaging or plundering:" Come on you must now the definition of the word rape and how it is used in context he meant. If you don't then go look up the word rape and see the meanings that word has.

[99th_Monkey]

2. By that metric, Bernie's got more experience 'getting things done' in DC than Hillary. nt

[auntpurl]

6. Hillary served on a lot of cross-aisle committees.

Armed Forces Committee springs to mind. She had to develop working relationships with those members.

[99th_Monkey]

9. "had to develop working relationships" in DC

Bernie has decades more experience doing just that, than does Hillary.

which was my point.

[auntpurl]

10. Are you only counting the time Hillary was a Senator?

Because she was a very active First Lady, and then SOS, and even before that, she's been in politics, forming relationships with people. Bernie was an Independent for the whole of his Senate run, wasn't he? How could he form strong party affiliations?

[99th_Monkey]

12. Senator and as Member of House of Representatives. both. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. How about the times she was lobbying for TPP

behind the scenes.

Good times...

[Octafish]

3. Well he did have both houses for the first two years of his first term.

Wish he'd used his electoral landslide and the bully pulpit and the mandate and all to accomplish more. But, yeah, other than that.

[auntpurl]

5. Yes, you're correct.

He did get the ACA passed in that time, which was like giving birth to a baby the size of Texas.

[Octafish]

21. If he wanted, he could have done more.

That would start with rustling support from the Democratic base that elected him; putting pressure on the Democrats in Congress to support him; and building on the momentum from the victorious election campaign that promised "Change."

He. Did. None. Of. That.

Instead, we settled for ACA, which is nice, as far as pre-existing conditions go, but no where near what we need.

[auntpurl]

29. Hey, I supported Hillary in '08 too.

There's only so much I can defend President Obama.

[Octafish]

43. Me, too. Plus, I supported Bill Clinton, after he became the nominee, in 1992.

And before him, Jimmy Carter, in '76 and '80.

I'm old, that's true. The problem is that Carter and the Clintons have moved the party so far to the right, many Democrats today don't know what it means to be a Democrat.

Imagine how hard it is for the "Independents" and others to understand what it means to be Inside or Outside, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes aren't helping.

[auntpurl]

45. Yes.

I have a different perspective on it - I don't necessarily think Carter and Clinton moved the party to the right. I think Republicans, both elected officials and the general population, moved to the right at a terrifying clip and Dems had to move in order to get swing voters.

You might be right, I don't know. But that's how I've always thought about it.

Bill Clinton '92 was my first presidential vote when I was 20.

There are definitely a lot of angry, confused people in this country right now.

[bigwillq]

4. Insiders are fine, but very few seem to be working for the people

Maybe it's time to try something else.

[guillaumeb]

8. Some points to consider:

When you wrote:

I've just watched 8 years of President Obama fighting a Republican Congress at every turn to try to get anything done. One of the reasons I supported Hillary in 2008 was that she IS an insider. I thought Obama would struggle to do the back room wheeling and dealing that is the real wheel greaser in Washington. He got better at it as he went along, but it was an uphill battle.

William Clinton also faced 8 years of obstruction. His accomplishments consisted of signing GOP bills regarding welfare reform, prison reform, NAFTA, which he enthusiastically supported, and sanctions against Iraqi civilians that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Some accomplishments.

We do not need another corporatist who will "get some stuff done" in your words if the "stuff" that is getting done is GOP ideas that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

[auntpurl]

13. The only way your point stands is if Hillary is lying about her platform/agenda

Hillary's platform is not made up of GOP ideas. So if you believe she's lying, that's your opinion, which I respect. I believe her when she says she will fight for her agenda.

[guillaumeb]

18. I accuse no one of lying. But GOP obstructionism

is their governing strategy. President Obama flirted with the idea of attacking Social Security with the idea of a chained CPI. He did this as part of an attempt to show he could/would "cross the aisle" and work with the GOP. Such crossing of the aisle presumes a willingness on both sides to compromise.

If anyone can show examples of recent GOP compromises with the Democrats I will reconsider.

Another example of attempted compromise was the negotiations over the ACA. The negotiations consisted in the Democrats basically adopting a GOP plan that is a massive subsidy of the Insurance industry.

We do not need such compromise.

[auntpurl]

22. The GOP have recently been terrible with compromise, you're right about that.

I'll be watching with interest regarding the SC nom.

But accepting your premise doesn't disregard the fact that either Democratic nominee will have to somehow break through that obstruction to get anything done. My feeling is that Hillary is positioned better to do that than Bernie. What is the alternative? That's a genuine question, not snark. If you have a better way, explain it to me. I'm the first to admit I don't know everything about politics.

[guillaumeb]

26. No matter who wins the nomination, the Democratic candidate is far preferable

and should receive our votes and support.

But absent at least one house of Congress going Democratic, very little will be accomplished. What is needed are
1) voters who understand that voting takes place every two years, and
2) Democratic politicians who actually represent a real alternative to GOP policies of austerity and corporate worship.

[auntpurl]

30. Good points. Thanks for the civil discussion.

[hollowdweller]

15. Depends on who's inside.

If Clinton can use her connections to get a progressive agenda passed then it's good to be an insider.

However if it means that you have to give Wall Street and the 1% a lot more stuff they want to get a little bit for the working people then it's not a good thing.

I'm just totally leery of Clinton. I've read her website and it sounds really good a lot of it, but the tone of some of the stuff she's said on the campaign trail makes me worry.

As far as cooperation maybe she can get congress and the GOP to move. Maybe she can fight fire with fire. That's my hope.
On the other hand this email thing, the Clinton Foundation, some of her foreign policy decisions. I can see how the GOP might just start hearings on whatever bs they can insinuate on day 1 and keep going throughout her admin. I mean Obama is really a pretty clean person far as dealings that could potentially be used as a smokescreen to ruin him or take attention off the issues he's pushing and just plain obstruction worked against him. Clinton is going to have that plus a bunch of questions about emails, pay for play at the state dept etc. Not saying there's anything to it though...

[auntpurl]

20. I haven't got the impression there's much to it re: the email stuff

It is possible, but it seems very unlikely so far.

Your first sentence is my hope and my belief; it's one of the big reasons I'm voting for her. Not only because I think she's more electable, but that I think she's more likely to make real progress than Bernie. I think Bernie would very much WANT to make progress, and would fight hard for it, but as he's been an Independent for many years, I don't know how strong his "insider" support is in Washington. He can't do this alone. No president can.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[earthside]

16. 'Insiders' invariably keep us on the 'outside'.

In my estimation even Pres. Obama has been too much of an 'insider' when the times called for a bolder approach to confront this recalcitrant, obstructionist Repuglican Congress.

"Insiders' also tend to end-up just like the Clintons ... enriching themselves by use of the public sector.

Of course, the ultimate 'insider' is a dictator who will indeed "get some stuff DONE".

[auntpurl]

25. But you're either inside or outside as a politician

Bernie is an outsider; it's one of the things his supporters love about him. He doesn't go along to get along. He's been an Independent his whole career. But I think that makes his position weaker. How will he hope to get any of his agenda passed without SOME cooperation? Honest question. If I'm missing something, let me know.

I don't believe Hillary has enriched herself through the public sector. I don't believe they steal from their charitable organisation. They have plenty of money themselves and I've never had a problem with it. She wants to take money off Goldman Sachs by giving speeches? Why not? She doesn't owe them anything. They want one of the most well-known respected women in the world to give a speech. They're not buying her favour.

Only my opinion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. I have no doubt she'll get things done.

Things progressives and the working class don't want.

[auntpurl]

27. Her platform is very progressive

If you think she's lying about wanting to enact her platform, I respect your opinion. I believe she will fight hard to give the American people what she's promised.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Which thing she promised?

Is she in favor of TPP or not? Is she a great friend to big banks or did she tell them to knock it off?

America is at a turning point - a MAJOR realignment. Both parties completely misunderstand what the public is demanding and the direction of that realignment is not at all obvious. Unless we get out in front of the public will, it's going to go the wrong way.

I listened to a segment on NPR this morning about the evangelical preachers gnashing their teeth that they've lost control of the flock who are now voting for a thrice married casino magnate. The same is true in our party, varying only by degree.

People are pissed at the status quo.

It is good to see her take a stand against secret unaccountable money in politics. I take this to mean she's working on typing up those transcripts.

[auntpurl]

49. I'm going by the platform she has posted on her website.

It's a good progressive agenda.

I definitely see what you're saying. There's a lot of anger and dissatisfaction out there. I am also coming at this from the point of view of someone who hasn't lived in the States since '08. So I can't really know what it feels like to be on the ground there. It may have deteriorated badly since I left. My friends and family are doing about the same, but of course, they are only an anecdotal sample of a few.

No matter what happens in this election, I think it will be interesting to see if there is any major change in American politics resulting from it. Trump and Bernie are definitely shaking things up.

I'm not really bothered about the whole speech transcripts thing, to be honest. I personally know a lot of people who get paid a lot of money to speak at conferences etc, and it doesn't change their beliefs or who they are as a person. Hillary is one of the most well-know, respected women in the world. She works damned hard. If Goldman wants to pay her to make a speech, that doesn't mean they own her. Only my opinion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. I think there's a widespread sense that we're being handled. It has the merit of being accurate.

The only difference of opinion is who is doing the handling and to what end.

I heard a really fascinating caller to the Thom Hartmann show this afternoon on my way home from work, paraphrased;

"First time listening to your show. I support Trump because he is a racist like me and has dispensed with the dog whistles and code. I generally agree with him that wars are dumb and social security shouldn't be privatized, but mostly, I like that he talks plainly about the racist things I believe."

I have been saying for years that we ignore populism at our peril. If we don't do it the right way (FDR) a republican is going to come along and do it the wrong way (Mussolini).

The tea party/evangelicals/prepper types are all of the opinion that we're being managed by pointy headed intellectuals to convince us that whites aren't really under siege, that there's no war on christmas and that storm troopers are not going to come take our guns. They believe this because they have been indoctrinated to accept that socialism is bad and the very real problems they are actually, in reality experiencing couldn't possibly be due to the economic system.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. Praise Jerbus...

"We need a strong conservative insider, who will cross the isle, with the incrementalist white flag of 'getting things done', and outsmart those other conservatives by passing TPP, increasing H1B Visas...allowing hard working Americans the break they surely need and cutting social program after program."

[auntpurl]

32. Her platform is very progressive

If you think she's lying about her platform, then i respect your opinion. But I believe she will work hard to get it accomplished.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. I find you to be disingenous given the facts if Hilly's track record.

[auntpurl]

38. Take a look around

You are the only person on this thread who wasn't able to engage in a civil discussion. I think that's a shame. Your anger isn't at me.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. You're right. I merely pointed out the unsavory truth.

Wall Street and the corporations have been screwing over Anericans for years: with the consent of Dems and Repugs.

On edit: no apologies.

[UglyGreed]

35. Her platform is very progressive

for the time being............

[auntpurl]

42. Well again, that goes to character.

Everyone has opinions about their candidate's character; it's one of the big reasons a lot of people vote for their chosen person.

Will Hillary's campaign talk swing a little bit back to center after the primary? Probably. But my opinion is that the platform she has posted on her website is the platform she will fight for if elected.

[Maedhros]

64. Her RHETORIC is progressive, and that's it. [n/t]

[UglyGreed]

66. Yes indeed

[Cleita]

37. An insider to do business as usual? No thanks.

Until "business as usual" is good for everyone and everything down to the last blade of grass, I prefer to have someone who is not an insider who sees what needs to change for the better. A good leader can shake up the establishment and make the necessary changes no matter how outside he/she is.

[auntpurl]

40. But how?

Whomever the Dem nominee is will have to deal with GOP obstructionism in order to get anything accomplished. Do you think Bernie is better positioned to do that, and if so how? These are genuine questions.

[Cleita]

51. I do. He's been an outsider for 25+ years in Congress, first in the House and

now in the Senate. Yet he has worked with insiders during that time to get a lot of legislation passed and often not taking credit for what he has done. He has been a successful politician. I would prefer he were more LBJ in temperament in "inspiring" cooperation with recalcitrant Congress members, but I believe his more laid back, but firm in position approach can be very effective as well.

[auntpurl]

56. Thank you for your reply.

Food for thought. I will, of course, vote for Bernie if he is the Dem nominee.

[Cleita]

60. You should vote for Bernie now if you don't want President Trump.

Hillary can't beat Trump because she has too much baggage he can throw at her in what will be a dirty campaign if she is the candidate.

[auntpurl]

62. I actually think Hillary will shellack him in the general

if she is the nominee.

Everyone knows Hillary's RW smears that are called baggage. If it hasn't stuck by now, it's not going to.

[Cleita]

65. She won't. People who will vote for Bernie who are not Democrats, Greens,

Independents, etc. and there are a large percentage of them, won't vote for Hillary. They really don't like her and will vote Third Party, for Trump or just not vote. I volunteer every week at our local Dem Hdqts. so I talk to people all the time about this both Dems and non-Dems, who aren't thrilled with the Republicans. I'm not allowed to take sides so I just listen and guide them to the campaign they wish to participate in, but this is what I'm hearing and other than the dyed in the wool Hillary people, most don't care for her and don't want to vote for her. I don't hear the same sour grapes about Bernie, just the vague accusations about him being a starry eyed socialist and other very untrue propaganda being leveraged at him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. The data indicates

The data indicates rank and file Republicans hate their leaders and feel betrayed. The same data indicates rank and file Democrats like and appreciate their leaders.

[auntpurl]

46. That's good news.

How do you think that will impact either Hillary or Bernie being able to enact their platforms?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. That's a different story...

If the GOP controls the House which seems likely and since all bills must emanate in the House I don't see Bernie or Hillary advancing much of their agenda, but they can use their veto power to prevent bad things from happening. They still can make appointments and issue executive orders.

[auntpurl]

50. Those reasons alone are enough to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is! nt

[Svafa]

57. It's too bad that the party needs more than just the rank and file to fall in line

in order to win the GE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. We will win...

I wish we had four parties

-a party with Obama as it leader and Clinton as it's presidential candidate
-a Trump party
-a Sanders party
- and a Romey-Kasich, Bush, old guard GOP party...

[DCBob]

47. I would call it "having connections".

In politics you need them to be successful.

[auntpurl]

53. Yes, that's it.

I feel like Bernie, while he seems like a good person, has been deliberately outside during his senate career. And I just don't see how that will help when it comes time to start getting any of his very, very progressive agenda passed.

Hillary is well-connected. I think that's a huge plus in a candidate who's going to be going up against a likely GOP-controlled congress.

[pdsimdars]

52. If Bernie wins by the large margins shown in the polling

that would be a sweep election and we could take back control.
But in the polls Hillary loses to most of the GOP candidates except a 1% lead on Trump. that will NOT be a sweep election and if she actually wins, she'd be the one to have trouble.
As Bernie said (and also Lincoln said it too), if you have the will of the people, you can't fail.

[auntpurl]

54. I worry about Bernie being un-vetted, though. The polling doesn't take that into consideration

And it's a bit unreliable this early on, too.

There's nothing they could throw out at Hillary that everyone hasn't heard a million times before. I don't mean Bernie has some major skeleton in his closet, but they will take all the "socialist" stuff (which I think isn't a very big deal) and twist it around and make him look terrible in the press, to loads of people who didn't know him before. Everyone knows Hillary. If the RW smears haven't stuck by now, they're not going to. Of course there are people who would never vote for her. But I think there are more who will.

[Cleita]

58. Bernie I not vetted? Puleeze. He's been in politics for thirty years,

first as a mayor, then as a Congressman and now a Senator. His dirty linen has been aired and the skeletons in his closet shown. This propaganda point comes right out of the Hillary camp to make him look like a Bolshevik.

[auntpurl]

61. Do you think most people in the country knew who he was before he ran for president?

I sure didn't. I may have heard the name, but I had no sense of who he was. And I follow politics (not as closely as some on DU, but I do follow them).

Everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is. I'd argue she's the most famous woman in the country outside of Oprah and Beyonce.

It's not about actual skeletons or linen. It's about the RW having a "new" (new in the sense that most people in the country don't know who he is yet) target for "new" smears, which will play well in the press.

For the record, I don't think he's a Bolshevik. But the RW may well make him look like one.

Who knows, I might be wrong. But that's my opinion.

[Cleita]

68. Most people, other than political wonks likes myself, don't follow

what's happening in Congress so they don't really even know their own Congress people and Senators, let alone one from Vermont. Hillary OTH hand has participated in two campaigns with her husband and one for herself so she has national recognition. So does Donald Trump, who is famous as a TV star so everyone knows him. However, name recognition is a piss poor reason to select the leader of the free world IMHO.

All candidates have to bring their best game to the campaigns so people start to get to know them. That's a fact, but their faults and pasts will be put under the microscope and many lies told about them in the process so it's up to the voter to learn as much as they can about the candidates to sort out which is the one who should go to the general election.

[mikehiggins]

67. The GOPukes will lie, of course, but the responses will be fast and furious.

Kerry made a big mistake thinking the Swiftboaters couldn't make him look like a fraud.
Times change. When Matthews favorite WAPO reporter lied about that picture of Sanders the Internet went crazy. ALl of the ploys HRC's people have floated get the same treatment, and that will continue.

Other than flat out lies there is nothing the GOPukes can do against Sanders. Certainly, they won't be able to get progressive voices and respected surrogates raised against him like HRC did.

As to the lies, there'll be no stopping them BUT thanks to the Internet they can be challenged and refuted immediately without having to wait for the next news cycle, or for the MSM to report honestly on them. Again, look at how Capehart's involvement with an HRC past operative was somehow not able to be reported on by Chris Matthews and Co. Still, the story got out, and fast.

We live in interesting times

[djean111]

63. I am not going to support a Third Way, neo-con insider.

And yes, I think she is lying, and yes, I believe that if she were to get busy on that Third Way wish list, and start cutting social services, her fan club would say oh, you knew what you were getting when you voted for her, and remind the rest of us that lying campaign blather is tres okay.