Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:40 PM Jun 2014

It is not that the Clintons are rich

Certainly, they did a lot more to earn their wealth than any Bush, Koch, Romney, or for that matter most of the Kennedys. Indeed, Bill Clinton is one of America's few leaders who actually did come from the working classes, from a broken home in Hope, Arkansas.

However, there are three things that the Clintons are ignoring:

One: what is getting people angry is that just because they are not as rich as some that I mentioned, they talk as if they are John and Jane Middleclass. Yes, 80 Million would be chump change to a Walton or Koch, but most of us will never see a quarter of one million, much less 80.


Two: What is also getting people angry is the way they got rich, by ripping away protections that used to keep people in the middlecalss, against things much worse than losing a mansion.

Glass-Steagall: the repeal of this law is what primed the explosive that blew the economy away.
Telecomuncations "reform": which is what allowed Fox news to grow
Welfare reform: which made the poor poorer.

The fact that they defend Wall Streey does not help. They do not need to defend Lloyd Blankfeld, they need to agree to pillory him. Hillary does not need to do speeches defensing outsourcing and H1b Visas, she needs to ban them.

Three: An inability to show regret:

Yes, she finally expressed regret for the Iraq war vote, and if it keeps Barack from going to war, great, but on the other hand, she shows no regret for Syria, Libya, or other disasters that came very close to getting us into another war. When she publicly decalred that she wanted to be more agressive in Syria, there was no regret, even though that support helped froth up the mess that is ISIS, even though many of the people we would have armed were supporters of what would become Isis.

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It is not that the Clintons are rich (Original Post) DonCoquixote Jun 2014 OP
Good points. I supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries. I'm thinking about not suppporting her SlimJimmy Jun 2014 #1
me too. La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #7
She can and should be primaried. But I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. n/t nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #8
Voting for any republican is not an option. (nt) SlimJimmy Jun 2014 #17
And not voting is essentially half a vote for the GOP. People can do whatever the hell they want nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #18
Trust me, I'll vote for the Democrat. I just may not be happy about it. SlimJimmy Jun 2014 #32
And yet very wealthy Elizabeth Warren presents herself as an 'aw shucks' regular person who just Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #2
Warren isn't saying ridiculous things that smack of a PR campaign 1000words Jun 2014 #3
Now that last sentence...THATS some funny stuff right there! 7962 Jun 2014 #4
Warren doesn't just talk about the inequity in our economy. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #11
+1 nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #19
It's easy to propose legislation in this congress that can't pass. joshcryer Jun 2014 #26
You know nothing about Elizabeth Warren, where she comes from, or what she is about ProfessorPlum Jun 2014 #15
Were you answering one of my posts? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #22
They replied to post #2, not you. joshcryer Jun 2014 #25
as joshcryer said below ProfessorPlum Jun 2014 #28
Let me tell you something. She was a Republican during the days that I learned how to demonstrate Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #29
A) are you replying to me? ProfessorPlum Jun 2014 #30
OK, I'll take the (obvious, clumsy) bait ProfessorPlum Jun 2014 #31
If Clinton runs she'll invariably invoke Warren's stuff, too. joshcryer Jun 2014 #24
I'd like to throw in Marc Rich and maybe a dash of the BCCI scandal... Whisp Jun 2014 #5
True. It's that they are clueless and don't give a damn Demeter Jun 2014 #6
Also claiming you don't care about money without acknowledging that you don't *have* to. n/t nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #9
you and others pressing this are due for a reality check bigtree Jun 2014 #10
because I criticize her DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #12
no it's because your criticism is a jumble of half-truths and biased opinion bigtree Jun 2014 #13
half truths eh DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #14
It's not the the Clintons are rich ProfessorPlum Jun 2014 #16
Pretty much... n/t nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #20
I heard on the radio that the Clintons' wealth is now up to $125 million. Jenoch Jun 2014 #21
Its that none of their friends are poor reddread Jun 2014 #23
By calling her comments inartful, I am not sure what to make of it. joshcryer Jun 2014 #27

SlimJimmy

(3,154 posts)
1. Good points. I supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries. I'm thinking about not suppporting her
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

this time around if there is a better, more viable candidate.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
18. And not voting is essentially half a vote for the GOP. People can do whatever the hell they want
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:26 PM
Jun 2014

but I won't stand to be criticized for voting instead of staying home.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
2. And yet very wealthy Elizabeth Warren presents herself as an 'aw shucks' regular person who just
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:32 PM
Jun 2014

happens to 'earn' about a million a year by 'consulting' with banks, insurance companies and other really wonderful corporations.....
It is really starting to bug me. Folks act as if she shits out a few ounces of gold a day and thus got rich by simply being her.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
3. Warren isn't saying ridiculous things that smack of a PR campaign
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:38 PM
Jun 2014

Obviously, Hillary has started her candidacy. Her coyness about owning up to it is yet another illustration of why folks see her in a distrustful way.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
11. Warren doesn't just talk about the inequity in our economy.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:34 PM
Jun 2014

She has proposed regulation on the banks, lower interest rates on student loans and other policies that could help curb or control the inequity.

It isn't about disliking rich people. It is about changing the fact that, as Elizabeth Warren says, "the game is rigged." Bill Clinton did very little to make sure that the rigged game was made fair when he was president. He appointed Greenspan to the Fed. It doesn't get much worse than that.

This article is great on the topic:

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/hillary_clinton_forgets_the_90s_our_latest_gilded_age_and_our_latest_phony_populists/

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
19. +1
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:28 PM
Jun 2014

Like I said, I'll vote for Clinton in the general, but in a more ideal world I'd rather have Warren.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
26. It's easy to propose legislation in this congress that can't pass.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:30 AM
Jun 2014

Propose something that can pass, that's the challenging part.

ProfessorPlum

(11,251 posts)
15. You know nothing about Elizabeth Warren, where she comes from, or what she is about
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:28 AM
Jun 2014

learn and read about her some more. You'll find no greater advocate for regular people against powerful corporations.

Your ignorance shames you.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
22. Were you answering one of my posts?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:38 AM
Jun 2014

I'm a huge Elizabeth Warren supporter. I have read her book A Fighting Chance. Did you mean to respond to a post other than mine?

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
25. They replied to post #2, not you.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:29 AM
Jun 2014

Replies to you are noted in "My Posts" and it indicates a yellow color when you get new replies. Perhaps you got confused or there's a bug in the system.

ProfessorPlum

(11,251 posts)
28. as joshcryer said below
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:38 PM
Jun 2014

I was responding to post #2. I have her book A Fighting Chance to, and I'm also a huge EW supporter. Let's hope she runs.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
29. Let me tell you something. She was a Republican during the days that I learned how to demonstrate
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:50 PM
Jun 2014

against Republicans. They were racist, homophobic and active about it. Their political rhetoric was a parfait of cold and callous, and she voted with and for them and their policies. Those policies were ignorant, based on bigotry and arrogance.
Anyone who was part of the Republican Party at that time is going to have to stand up and explain themselves if they want my vote or the votes of others who lived through what I lived through.
So excuse me for having disdain for Republican policy and those who embraced it while thousands died for their follies.

ProfessorPlum

(11,251 posts)
31. OK, I'll take the (obvious, clumsy) bait
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jun 2014

and ask you: since you seem to be implying that EW embraced "Republican policy", what Republican policy are you specifically talking about?

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
24. If Clinton runs she'll invariably invoke Warren's stuff, too.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:26 AM
Jun 2014

So it'll just be called dishonest coming from Clinton.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
5. I'd like to throw in Marc Rich and maybe a dash of the BCCI scandal...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:34 PM
Jun 2014

just for shits and giggles.

there is plenty more where those came from!

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
10. you and others pressing this are due for a reality check
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:46 PM
Jun 2014

. . . most voters tune out nonsense like this.

It's amazing that people think Hillary can be easily labeled and defeated with this type of political drivel.

We used to call this sort of thing 'flamebait'

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
12. because I criticize her
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:50 PM
Jun 2014

As many say to me when I get called an Obama Bot (even though I can slam him), no one is immune from criticism, especially when they open their mouth to the press. This is not flamebait.

and of the voters are dumb enough to tune out criticism, then I guess the BRIC countries can pop the champagne at our expense.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
13. no it's because your criticism is a jumble of half-truths and biased opinion
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:53 PM
Jun 2014

. . . that looks designed less to inform, than to elicit hurrahs from the anti Hillary crowd.

You might have been shooting for something else . . .

ProfessorPlum

(11,251 posts)
16. It's not the the Clintons are rich
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:30 AM
Jun 2014

It is that they too willingly work on behalf of those who are super-rich, to the detriment of everyone else.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
27. By calling her comments inartful, I am not sure what to make of it.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:33 AM
Jun 2014

It was a quick retraction of the wording.

Is it a calculated meme to rebuff the "Hillary as oligarch" meme that will invariably be used in the campaign? Purposefully say some weirdly stated thing (and yes both times she was stating it very weirdly, especially since the "pay taxes" quote came after the "dead broke" comment which she got criticized for), get the media to go off on it, retract it a bit, let it blow over, then when it comes up in the campaign, can really pass it off as a non-issue. "That's old news. The American people didn't buy it then, they won't buy it now, Bill and I came from a middle class background, I fought for civil rights causes. My path in life was political choices I had to make because I am a woman."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It is not that the Clinto...