2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"She's good on women's and children's issues, BUT..."
Show of hands all of the DUers who have read and been offended by this particular attack on Clinton.
This line of reasoning presupposes that "women and children" are a fringe interest. That their concerns are somehow gravy on the meat and potatoes of working class wages and wealth.
Sorry, but women's and children's issues are working class wages and wealth. When women are kept down, when their children are kept down, wages for all are kept low. When children of single working women are raised in poverty, unable to get a decent education, capital assures itself another generation of poorly paid, overworked, compliant labor.
For the record, women hold up (over half) of the sky, we are responsible for the majority of child rearing AND we work outside the home. We make a fraction of what men make, even though we have to stretch that money to make it cover kids, too. We disproportionately care for the elderly. We disproportionately live in poverty. The life expectancy for women in some rural US counties is going down. Men can get Viagra, no questions asked on their insurance, but we have to fight like hyenas to get birth control covered. Too many people think of us as baby incubators, with no value in ourselves. We are sexualized---and tossed out onto the garbage heap when we are no longer "young and desirable." Our intellect is judged based upon our "beauty"---i.e. use of cosmetics, high heeled shoes, uncomfortable and impractical clothes. Our female politicians have their breast size and ankle thickness judged by the press. We are passed over for promotion, because "we'll probably just get married, have a baby and quit".
Here is something that should make any sane person cringe. The majority of rapes in this country are committed by men against women. Rape, we now know, is not a sexual act. It is an act of hatred and power. Meaning that women are still viewed with hatred and as objects by way too many people in this country. That has got to change.
Community organization comes from within. Women and children will rise from oppression through their own efforts, not by waiting for Santa Claus to bring equality. And when women attempt to rise from oppression, we will be labeled shrill, witches, unnatural, power hungry and a host of other terms too ugly to print. So be it. The ugliness will just make us more determined.
djean111
(14,255 posts)What you say about women (and children) is true, but Hillary is not the only candidate who can or will address those things. In fact, maybe she should just concentrate on those things instead of being the president.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)that kill mothers and leave children vulnerable, fracking that ruins our environment and serving on the Wal-Mart board which helped to reduce wages. And there are plenty more ways that Hillary has failed both women and children, and men to boot.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Even wrote an environmental bill that didn't ban fracking, only regulated chemicals.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)get Bin Laden instead of the oil Cheney was after.
I'll have to check on the fracking bill since you, as usual, didn't include any reference links, but I feel quite certain Bernie had a good and moral reason for the way he voted.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)supported and what Sanders supported.
I would really like to know how in the heck you can support or forgive Hillary's Iraq vote?
Once we went in to Iraq, nobody really had a choice but to support Afghanistan. I would have voted for it too but with a stipulation that every legislator that voted for the Iraq war (based on what they knew were lies) would be on the front lines. Maybe you would prefer me to Bernie.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Response to SonderWoman (Reply #20)
Live and Learn This message was self-deleted by its author.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)am I missing something here?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was recently ranked as the Senate's top leader on global warming.
The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.
Climate Hawks Vote measures leadership, not just voting records, tabulating actions like bills introduced, speeches given, and so forth. In the 112th Congress, Sanders ranked third behind Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). In the last Congress, he edged out Whitehouse by one point.
"Sanders is very much among the top leaders," says R.L. Miller, founder of Climate Hawks Vote. "He has a record of really strong advocacy for solar in particular." Miller notes that distributed solar, which enables everyone with a solar panel to create their own energy instead of relying on a monopolistic utility company, fits especially well with Sanders' democratic socialist philosophy. It's bad for corporations and good for regular folks who get to own the means of production.
Here are some of the highlights from Sanders' climate and clean energy record:
* In 2013, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sanders introduced the Climate Protection Act, a fee-and-dividend bill. It would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens, then invest the remainder in energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency. The bill, of course, went nowhere (even if it had advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been DOA in the Republican-controlled House), but it shows that Sanders supports serious solutions and wants to keep the conversation going.
* Also in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. This bill didn't become law either.
* In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he wrote in Grist at the time, "It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America." The bill didn't pass.
* In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the country, the very literally named "10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act." As Grist's David Roberts explained, it would "provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey." The bill didn't pass.
* In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.
*Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus package.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/bernie-sanders-greenest-presidential-candidate
Which bill do you disagree with?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)There is no proof Bernie would ban fracking, even in environmental bills he wrote. It would help if he actually released a policy paper.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Claiming he won't support banning fracking as president is just more of the same from the Not Good Enough Bernie brigade.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)that might affect multi-thousands of people and ensure the fill rate of the private prisons and ruin multiple people lives forever. Shame on him!
Shame on anyone that perpetuates these straw-man arguments. I've got her number too but just threw it in the trash where it belongs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And he did it out of desperation because he was losing to Bernie, just like the person who posted that video on DU.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Show me his ban fracking bill. He's been in govt for 30 years.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)* Also in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. This bill didn't become law either.
* In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he wrote in Grist at the time, "It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America." The bill didn't pass.
* In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the country, the very literally named "10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act." As Grist's David Roberts explained, it would "provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey." The bill didn't pass.
* In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.
*Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus package.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.
Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Department's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.
The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globepart of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officialssome with deep ties to industryalso helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At a speech to an environmental advocacy group, Clinton came out in favor of frackingand ignored the controversial pipeline project.
At a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in midtown Manhattan Monday night, before hundreds of deep-pocketed donors, Hillary Clinton praised the environmental legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, touted the prospect of new green technologies, and had warm words for Barack Obamas aggressive efforts to combat climate change.
Absent from the former Secretary of States speech? Any sense of where she stood on the controversial Keystone pipeline project, or what she would do differently as president to steer the nation towards a more sustainable future.
But that didnt mean that Clinton wasnt clear about where she came down on environmental mattersshe praised both her husbands record of cleaning up air and water standards, and the Obama administrations recent efforts to strike a climate deal with China and to toughen pollution standards.
We continue to push forward. But that is just the beginning. Science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, Clinton said, reading off of prepared remarks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html
Let's keep comparing their records on the environment, this is fun!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I've never seem you post ANYTHING about fracking.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)by overturning NAFTA? How about her bill to support the 'lower class' that Bernie would rather not even have, by overturning 'Welfare Reform'?
Why would Bernie put forth a bill he had no hopes of getting passed since even Democrats are in the pockets of the corporations? Instead he chose to run against the corporations while it was still possible, even though he didn't really want to, because he thought that was the ONLY possible way to stop them.
Bernie has a huge record of standing up for everybody, introducing legislation on many important issues and voting against immoral or unconstitutional issues. His issues record bats Hillary hands down.
By the way, don't take my silence in responding to you for the remainder of the primaries as anything more meaningful than I have much better things to do.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)That's the one that told me she considers children a lower priority than waging war.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)By what other folks say about politicians.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
brer cat
(24,605 posts)It's coming!
Great post, McCamy. K&R
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)The TPP
The XL pipeline
Fracking
Wall street thieves
Prisons for profits
Wars, wars, wars and more wars
The MIC
Allowing billionaires to buy our government
Corporate tax loopholes
Bernie is just as good on women's issue and also has a 100% NARAL rating, so Hillary has nothing on him on this issue. I vote on issues and not gender, skin color, ethnicity, sexuality or status.
Her support for all of the above surely doesn't help women and children. I wouldn't want my son sent to fight one of her wars. No thank you.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)There are a lot of other issues I find myself unable to support her on. I think she should use her foundation to focus on women's and children's issues. She could get a lot done there.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Welfare Reform etc. I really don't see how she helps women and children at all. Obama has done a lot but i honestly don't see Hillary in that loop.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)I'd say that "She's good on women's and children's issues, BUT..." does not equate in any way to considering that to be a fringe interest. It means that the speaker considers other issues at least equally important, and/or that the quantity of important issues HRC is strong on is not sufficiently large. Neither diminishes the importance of W&C issues.
And lets' face it, while it's true that the "working class wages and wealth" issues you mentioned are related to W&C as well, HRC is arguably not the strongest candidate on those fronts.
I'd also say that the fact that most rapes are committed by men against women is in no way indicative of societal skewing of how women are viewed (not that there *isn't* skewing, just that that fact is poor evidence of it). If nothing else, look at the simple science and statistics of it. As a whole, men are more aggressive, therefore more likely the rapers (as well as being more naturally equipped for it). And the majority of men are heterosexual. I know, "you said rape is not a sexual act," but that's an oversimplification, because there is a sexual component. i.e. no matter how much some unhinged straight man dislikes some other man (even for the equivalent of misogynistic reasons, i.e. racist reasons), he will express it with more "traditional" violence, he's not likely to rape him. Heck, even if for no other reason than not wanting to appear gay!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Even if these "attacks" exist (doubtful), why in the world do we have to ignore this
NotHardly
(1,062 posts)I read and observe this site daily and the "eat our own" behavior is appalling. Good thing the site is Democratic by name otherwise I would mistake it for a right wing flogging spot.
dougolat
(716 posts)Looks like she's flogged herself with that dismal record.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)and I am someone who has not supported Hillary since the IWR vote
the bashing is over-the-top ridiculous
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Despite those that make claims to the contrary, it is gone far beyond policy critique. I see a lot of 'psychoanalysis' and echoing of right wing character assassination.
It isn't "HRC's policies are Bad," it is "Hillary is Bad Person."
She and Bernie voted the same in the Senate around 93% of the time. Of course there are policy differences between them and they approach things differently. I prefer Bernie's approach.
However HRC does not deserve the amount of demonization and vitriolic character attacks she receives here. I guess I prefer Bernie's approach as well.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... a democracy, each voter gets to decide which issues are important to them. Or perhaps unfortunately for you, as it means you don't get to demand that others have the same priorities as you do.
Your chosen candidate's priorities are not mine, and as such, I will work for and vote for a candidate who's history and policy statements DO line up much more closely with my own. Browbeat away all you please, you'll never change my mind.
Please proceed.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Even if Hillary was stronger than Bernie on this point (which I don't believe), voting for Hillary based on this one point is like focusing on sending blankets and food bundles to mothers and children while the house is burning down.
Bernie's running on putting out the fire (in addition to food, healthcare, equal-pay, family leave, etc., etc.).
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Fix the economic, social, religious and political lives of 51% of America and we have pretty much fixed this country as a whole.
Every issue you acknowledge above might not be overtly in her campaign speeches, but she and the 51% KNOW that they are the context of her words. She might swim with power sharks but she is not of them. She has a grandchild whose future can be shaped by her presidency. That's a powerful incentive to stay true to the 51% in spite of all political opposition.
Thanks for your OP.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But many of us believe she's far less than good on several other critical issues, and those are the issues that will kill her candidacy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 04:23 PM - Edit history (2)
Issues of particular importance to their wellbeing, but less than those of men, are not just usually but habitually considered of less to little importance by almost everyone, and often ignored completely.
Just recently JEBush! let slip that he questioned whether women's healthcare warranted spending half billion dollars. Our REPORTED federal budget for 2014 was $3650 billion.
Women and children are not automatically dismissed just to dis Hillary. That's the way it always has been. And the de-prioritizing of women's and children's issues should not be blamed solely only on conservatives, as is proven by the behavior of the middle and left. This low priority is intrinsic to the cultures we were raised in, no matter where we came from:
This is the source of that "she's good on women's and children's issues, BUT..."
Yes, this dismissive "BUT" is offensive to me. I am a woman, a mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother.
BTW, this is a major reason I still support Hillary, in spite of other positions I don't like. Long ago, in spite of being a nationally recognized star of her generation before she even finished college, she ignored the money and status of glam fields to help by going into women's and children's law, the despised and kicked-aside orphan of the legal field. She even had to raise money to pay her own salary before the cash-strapped organization she wanted to work for could hire her. I believe she is still that woman, the one who has these priorities, at least, straight.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She's pro-choice, to be sure. So are all the other announced democratic candidates. On all concrete proposals, Sanders is at least as good, or better "for women and children".
Of course, Hillary doesnt release a lot of concrete proposals, does she.
Yes, she gave a very good speech in China. 20 years ago.
It appears from OPs like these that for some reason Hillary Clinton represents something, to some people, something which is wildly distant from any actual policies she is likely to enact or even argue for, as POTUS. And it has something to do with her being female, but apparently it is not a valence that could be filled by other female candidates, like Liz Warren, who many of us here would have loved to see get in the race.
No, for some reason Hillary Clinton alone represents something to some portion of the party, and it does seem to be operating on a plane that is not driven by a calculated assesment of her actual political positions. She represents Luke Skywalker, flying down the trench of the patriarchy, the last great, indeed ONLY- hope to deal it a death blow.
It doesn't make a ton of sense. Do people believe that once Hillary is president, Sports Illustrated will stop putting out the swimsuit issue?
Realistically, back on Earth, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for, pretty much, more of the same. Or maybe, even, in the case of things like the drug war (based upon lobby dollars from the private prison industry) worse than the same.
But the candidate of radical societal change? She most certainly is not. Her brand of status quo would undoubtedly be preferable to the GOP alternative, but certainly during the primary it should be understandable why many of us- including women and children- find it pretty fuckin' uninspiring.
Ino
(3,366 posts)of whatever is left over after she's taken care of the corporations, banks, rich....
of whatever is left over after the middle class has disappeared.