Exactly right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025781866

I don't think H. Clinton-Sachs record on social issues outweighs her support of foreign policy, wars, Security State, Wall Street.

And even if it does, she proved in 2002 that she has zero integrity.

For example, she's also rated as 80% by Citizens for Tax Justice (progressive group), indicating support for progressive taxation.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-CTJ.htm

which is critically important if we're ever stop/reverse the income/wealth gap, and not in the interests of Wall Street, which profits most when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/income-inequality-tax-system_n_3454216.html

Her voting record is also pro-labor and pro-Social Security...also rated 89% by the League of Conservation Voters.

in which case I agree her support for authorization was wrong, and that's a major reason why I supported Obama over her because his dissent was clear. Foreign policy is where I have most of my disagreement with her. I just think one should examine the entirety of the issues and differences with other candidates, such social, economic, environmental, etc..

Two things
I don't think H. Clinton is the one to lead the 99% out of oligarchy.
I honestly don't think she has an once of integrity for what she did re. the Iraq War. I will never give any support to anyone that betrayed us and sided with George Bush.

It takes an effort on all fronts, local, state, and national, in the primaries and general elections, and on the streets in protest when needed. I'm not best friends with any politician, so voting to me has everything to with deciding on the candidates at any stage that will best advance the interests of the country. Maybe the final 2 in the general election are flavors way down on my list, but rum raisin is still way better than dirt-flavored.

The only good thing to come out of the Iraq debacle is that the public has no more stomach for large-scale multi-trillion dollar conflicts. With Republican leaders, they have a way of getting their base on board with anything, which is scary. With Democratic leaders, they have to contend with Republicans who oppose anything they do on partisan grounds, and Democrats who are opposed to dumb wars.

Policies. I remember way back when I used to respect her and she began talking about Iraqis the same the Right Wingers I was constantly fighting with over Iraq, were talking.

I was shocked. I thought her vote was a huge betrayal of Dems who made it clear just how much they opposed that war because they KNEW Bush/Cheney were lying. Why didn't she? What kind of leader makes such a HORRIFIC mistake on one of the most important issues an elected official has to ever make, that they know will cost lives, mostly innocent lives? But it wasn't a mistake, so I'm not sure which is worse, she was simply mistaken or she was completely on board with the neocons. We know the answer as to which it was now. And there is no way I would ever support anyone whose Foreign Policies are identical to the war criminals who got us into Iraq.

I remember Fox used to BLAME the Iraq People, stating that they needed to get their act together after we so kindly invaded them and destroyed their country. But that was FOX, what else would we expect from them?

And then I heard Hillary saying it, 'we have given them their freedom, and they need to start appreciating it' etc etc. I could not believe it.

No, I would never support someone who is so close to Wall St and to the War Machine.

Her callous IWR vote did it for me, too... forever.

She knew about PNAC, knew her constituents opposed IWR, knew her Senate seat was not threatened, knew forcing the vote before the 2002 midterms was a political ploy, knew Iraq was not a threat (certainly not an imminent mushroom cloud threat to the US), knew Iraq was not behind 9/11. She knew better or should have, but she had her sights on the White House and chose to put her finger in the wind rather than show poliical courage. Blood is on her hands, too. She aided and abetted the Bush cabal and provided bipartisan cover for Bush's actions.

When she did run for POTUS, her primary campaign management (a harbinger of her "leadership&quot was abysmal. She was so cocksure that she would win the primaries early and decidedly, that when she lost, she resorted to mud-slinging, kitchen sink tactics and even spoke admirably of McCain.

Her past is prologue and nothing says more about her than that IWR vote and that 2008 primary campaign!

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

but unfortunately I am not.

However what is happening the party wants the liberals and progressives to go away.

She is way too cozy with wall street and she comes across as very disingenuous when she tries to pick up Warrens rap.

People know the real thing when they see it and Hillary is not it.

If the Choice presented to America in 16 is Hillary and any republican, the republican will win.

Just like Harry Truman said.

All US politicians look more conservative compared to the average European country, with the relative gap narrowed as a result. Beyond that, I'm not so convinced of their methodology, though. Ralph Nader is like Gandhi? Thatcher and Stalin are near equal opposites on the left/right scale but just as authoritarian? I wouldn't want anyone as close to as extreme leftist as Stalin leading the country, so I'm glad our politicians are rated far from that.



Another observation is that some U.S. political leaders would actually rate much further to the left if they were leaders in more progressive countries and had other progressive legislators to work with. More Bernie Sanders in the Senate would cause Obama's leadership assessment to shift sharply to the left, closer to his record as IL state senator. The leadership that results is a collective product of those who show up to vote. Not voting makes it worse, resulting more far right leaders in Congress and a steadily weakening hand for progressives.

goes beyond a single continuum, and beyond the conventional American's definition of right and left, it's true.

Which is it, truly, about Stalin that is the problem? How far left, or how authoritarian? I think it's the authoritarian facet that made him a problem, myself.

I find the placement of mainstream U.S. politicians in the upper right quadrant to be accurate; they aren't "left," and that's what makes the public conversation in the U.S. about "the left," "liberals," and "progressives" so ludicrous.

Based on his record in the Senate and WH, Obama was never going to be further to the left, in my opinion. I'm not sure how we veered so sharply off into voting territory, but the bottom line is this:

Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal, and is right-of-center globally, both socially and economically.

Therefore I don't consider her an appropriate nominee. If Democrats want to support her or want to vote for her, that's certainly their choice. I'd just like to see it done more honestly, without the false promotion of her as "left" or "liberal."

I'd say Stalin's economic philosophy is too extreme. A society that combines capitalism and socialism is ideal in my view - one that rewards hard work, allows for private enterprise but allows for excellent class mobility, a much smaller gap between rich and poor and much stronger social safety net than exists in the United States. Europe on balance is closer to that ideal.

I definitely agree with the gist of the measures in your link. Bernie Sanders is hardly some extreme leftist, and quite reasonable. Nor is Clinton. I wish the center of the U.S. Congress was about where he is, at most only slightly to the right. Clinton on balance is more conservative for my preferences but not dramatically so, and her voting record hardly implies any significant right-wing philosophy on most issues, although there's a very good case to be made foreign policy-wise. Anyone looks leftist compared to Bush/Cheney on that front.

Obama never had filibuster-proof votes to implement a much more progressive agenda that he envisioned (a handful of conservative Dem Senators held that up...remember Ben Nelson?) , but I would note that his most progressive achievements came during his first 2 years as opposed to the last 4, with the exception of rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1-2% and some executive action on issues like the environment. If he had the votes, and as indicated by both his actions (ObamaCare financing comes from taxes on the wealthy and corporation too) and speeches, he'd raise the marginal rates further, but that's out of the question now thanks to the cumulative effect of both midterms.

Another way of looking at it, whether it's Warren, Sanders, or Nader, if any was President, their ratings would be pushed sharply to the right on your chart - how far based on what the legislative makeup of Congress was. They could stick to their guns and get nothing done or do what is politically possible. Obama would not have the votes for single payer, so he formed legislation that just barely brought all Democrats on board against a fiercely obstructionist Republican minority. All elections matter, whether it's getting another progressive in SCOTUS (note how Citizens United went down along party lines), voting in the primaries for progressives, or choosing the more progressive of 2 candidates (even if you view this as center-right vs extreme right), every one of those votes can help shift the legislative and judicial branches (state or national) to the point where governors or presidents will shift accordingly. Sitting out the vote and letting the nation go to hell makes things worse, and we end up spending so much time digging out from a mess (see the Bush years and aftermath). Imagine if Obama had not inherited a projected $1.5 trillion deficit (CBO, early 2009). I'm digressing a bit.

that I like about the political compass is that the ratings are based on actions, not words. In order to NOT move to the right in office, any Democratic POTUS would have to take a stand, to fight hard to at least maintain, if not move us further to the left. A POTUS who compromises with the right is inevitably going to drift to the right on that chart. Frankly, I'd rather have someone who will stick to their guns; that "nothing" that they get done is huge when it means we didn't LOSE any ground, while doing "what is politically possible" often means moving the nation in the wrong direction, which further weakens us.

Again, though, you are connecting voters' actions to those positions. I think that being honest about where a candidate really stands is the ethical thing to do, and I think that people who cast their votes shouldn't be propagandized into thinking a candidate is something different than he or she really is.

I think, from what I'm reading, you are suggesting that being transparent and upfront about where HRC, or any, candidate stands automatically means people won't vote for that candidate.

That says a great deal about where the Democratic Party is heading right there. I think it would be much better to support and nominate candidates who people WANT to vote for than spend an election using the fear card to bully people into voting for a candidate they don't like, or misrepresenting that candidate to convince them that he is different than he really is. It's telling, too, to see, inevitably, whose votes the party is willing to lose, and whose votes they are willing to earn.

that I like about the political compass is that the ratings are based on actions, not words.

According to your link:

"They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records."

which is similar to ontheissues.org, using first voting records (actions) and public statements. The key difference, as we noted before, is ontheissues is US-based while politicalcompass is in relation to world leaders, past and present. I think both have merit and limitations.

Frankly, I'd rather have someone who will stick to their guns; that "nothing" that they get done is huge when it means we didn't LOSE any ground, while doing "what is politically possible" often means moving the nation in the wrong direction, which further weakens us.

I don't think rolling back Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (belated or not), passing energy efficiency standards on multiple fronts, having the EPA take action on emissions, passing health care reform that expands Medicaid, is very progressively financed, and provides health insurance to tens of millions of people, passing a large stimulus bill that is mostly progressive and took us out of the Great Recession, has moved us in the wrong direction. Insisting on single payer, 80% tax rates on the top income brackets, etc. would end up with nothing done. Nothing done renders the nation more right-wing than it would be otherwise. If a stubborn progressive leader insisted on those things the end result is an administration that ends up being more right-wing in comparison to a more pragmatic one. That is a wasted opportunity, and one I don't think a Bernie Sanders would squander. Moving the compass to the left can't be done by simply electing a leader with a strong progressive voting record (Senator Obama) but requires persistent voting in every election, local, state, and national, and both in primaries and general elections.

I think that being honest about where a candidate really stands is the ethical thing to do, and I think that people who cast their votes shouldn't be propagandized into thinking a candidate is something different than he or she really is.

I agree with that, which is why I posted the ontheissues links, which shows key voting records on every major issue, which I think shows the big picture, good and bad. Candidates should be evaluated based on a complete record, not a selective reading, which non-voters often do to justify their inaction.

The only way one can really justify not voting is to truly believe there are no significant differences between candidates, and I don't think that's justified when comparing a Hillary Clinton to a Paul Ryan, for example.

If Sanders enters the primary, he'll show up on the compass.

A socialist would be economically to the left, so he'd be in the left half of the grid.

I suspect he'd be somewhere below the center line between "authoritarian" and "anarchist," but I don't know how far below. In all probability, he'd be in the "libertarian left" quandrant.

or even to the upper right, since his Senate record would be the primary source I would assume, and recall that Obama's Senate record was very liberal in comparison (ranked most liberal in the Senate for one session I think), but hasn't earned him liberal points on that world scale. Senate votes in general are more moderate than the House, and Kucinich is already near the center.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders_VoteMatch.htm

is more liberal than Obama or Biden or Kucinich

I just think again that the political propagandists have become very skillfull in getting us to hate people.

Its a good idea to fixate upon what a person actually does, and what a person actually says. Avoiding hearsay and bought-and-paid-for media-driven groupthink isn't easy, but its one way of making sure your decisions are your own.

and ones I often agree with, but usually very selective, focusing on a few specific issues where they've (sometimes legitimately) felt let down.

I've spent time in the past arguing with someone who insisted that Obama was the same as Bush and Republicans, citing things like NSA, drone strikes, and a few other areas. When I pointed out a list of differences he just kept brushing them off, eager to rationalize not voting and calling me a "partisan" in the process, proud of his role as an "independent".

in spite of hundreds of others that they might agree with or admire that person over. Which demonstrates some pre-programming to hate the person. Even if your "gut" has been hijacked by outside puppet-masters, its easier to find a reason to agree with your gut than it is to take a balanced overview and a position of self-doubt.

in Iraq. She helped the Bush Family mislead this country into what may have killed our democracy. We expect the deception from the Republicans, but he depend on Democrats to save us. She lied to us, she betrayed us. She proved she has zero integrity. She has to live with the consequences. She should never be given the presidency.

Someone posted political compass above, which is far superior.

... what we were told when we stated our displeasure with Obama's rightward drift after his election. I distinctly recall being told that I "shouldn't project my liberalism upon him" or that I "just wasn't paying attention to what he actually said."

Fine. Won't make those mistakes again.

Hillary Goldman-Sachs Clinton is NO liberal, in fact, she is just about everything I detest in a politician.

See? Even us dumbass hippies can learn things.

"On the corporate-authored bills that make it before Congress" would be more accurate, and put in context this lame attempt to paint Clinton as a left-liberal.

Left-liberal bills are almost never on the table.

It's great the Democratic Party supports equal/civil/gay rights, but if you're living in a refrigerator box how much do those things really matter?

kinder, gentler Neo-liberalism.

The site referenced in OPs post classified me as Moderate Libertarian Liberal based upon my answers. Obama was my #4 match at 40%, Sanders was my #10 at 35% and Clinton landed way down at #13 with only a 30%. It's pretty spot on for how I feel I align with candidates in the Dem party and I claim to be a Libertarian Democrat so that was a decent match.

I may not agree with everything she believes but I still like her and she has my support.