nt.

But Hillary is to the national stage what Martha Coakley is to the Massachusetts stage.

The obvious choice but tone deaf and detached from the constituency she needs in order to win.

To snap shut off the entire insurance industry on first try is not possible. All countries with universal care have had to go through years and years of painful progress to get to their end point. I don't believe for a second that Obama was only about giving insurance companies more money. That is pure nonsense.

But you are absolutely right about Hillary Clinton. She would be many steps back from what Obama has been able to accomplish even with the enormous push back he has received on anything he wanted to do.

I am someone who is alive because of it.

What people don't realize, and a point that needs to be stressed, is that the ACA opens the door for single payer. It sets the minimum standards for what states need to encact, but allows for them to go beyond those standards. This is how Vermont is enacting their single-payer system--from the federal funding they are receiving from the ACA. We can now do this one state at a time. As each state shows success, other states will come on board.

Really, it may be the only way we had to get it enacted. Canada did it the same way--one province at a time. As long as the republicans don't kill it in its infancy, the ACA may very well morph into single-payer. There is no other way to take down the insurance companies, except to slowly whittle them away.

I am supporting her again in the primaries, she may not make it into the general election but I still like the work she has done and she has more experience.

But what does your user name mean? Thinking about what? Thinking about everything? It's very awkward for an English or Romance language speaker to decipher. Dangling participle and all of that.

That was my question.

I just asked what it meant, that's all. No offense intended.

would that work?

I find the English language has changed, I love it.
For example: because Obama.
Because doge, and cheezburgr.
Wow. Very language.

It may be happening this way because the more we are
interconnected through the bits and bytes, the less needs
to be verbalized; the gist is sufficient. Mind melding.

I'm still hoping Snow White is smacked down.

I'll have to look for them. Regina wears the most phenomenal clothes - working on that set must be a costume designers dream.

EPIC!!!!!

If we get a choice by the time the primaries get to PA, I would probably vote for Sanders. But that is a long way off.

I worked my behind off for Obama the first time, but not the second. I'll wait to see who the candidate is before I make that decision.

It gives them name recognition, and if they are solid candidates, it gives them plenty of time to let the opposition look like idiots when they attempt to use gutter politics.

I mean, I guess she kind of already is. But you know what I mean...

choose to help Bush/Cheney lie us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. She didn't just vote with them she helped them promote the war. How could you ever trust her again?

and in fact has continued to rationalize to voters why it was the right vote then, and "I have nothing to apologize for", "I didn't want to break faith with the military", etc.

But if it came to a vote between two candidates - her, and Mitt Romney/Michele Bachmann/Sarah Palin - how insane would one have to be to either 1) stay home and thus shrug in the face of the prospect of watching a greater evil win in the form of someone like Romney due in part to voter apathy; or 2) actually cast a vote perhaps NOT for the GOP but for anyone NOT her when the race for the White House is going to be so highly competitive? I may be crazy, but I'm not THAT crazy.

But I was pessimistic that he actually would be able to effect any meaningful changes because things were so completely fucked up at the time he took office. And I was right, he hasn't changed things significantly for the middle class. Either he was naive enough to believe he actually could make a difference, or cynical enough to not care. Sadly, I'm now leaning toward cynical.

I don't feel the same about H. Clinton. She actually has no desire to change anything, and she definitely is cynical enough to not even try. I know this going in, she's taken great pains to make it clear, so why should I even give her a second thought.

She has status quo written all over her and the more she opens her mouth the clearer it's going to become.

toward Hillary Clinton any plainer than you did, tularetom. Exactly what I see, and why I'm apathetic towards her as a candidate, and perhaps even have a shade of antipathy.

of is she guilty? I hear these 'charges' of misdemeanor, anything else?

She has to stick her finger in the air first and consult with her people before she has an opinion on events - and even then she lummoxes it up. Or before she feels safe enough to have that particular opinion.

I find that robotic and frightening that she has to hide her real self in that way. What is she hiding?

to get us into a war that killed a hundred thousand, ruined millions, and most likely dealt our middle class a death blow. How can you trust her?

is pretty right-wing. But if she runs in the general I'll have to hold my nose and vote for her because a Repub would be worse.

but being forced to vote for a candidate isn't exactly going to bring enthusiasm to the polls. Only the die hards are going to go, and they will do so grudgingly.

Bill Clinton did not rescue the economy, it was the tech-bubble. However,
he started this whole thing about the "New Democrats". What was wrong
with the Old ones?

Well, the Old ones refused to go to bed with corporations and banks,
which B.Clinton changed. His slogan was:It's the economy, stupid!

Yes, and we have seen what devastating results we got from this
New democratic policies, including NAFTA.

Does anyone really believe that HRC is the opponent of her
husband's policies? Sorry, I will not be fooled again.

myself included, as Democrats are in the same boat you are. If Hillary is the best we have, then fuck it, we are no better off than if we have a Republican. The window dressing might be a little different, and I prefer cream curtains to dark gray ones, but when the window shade behind it is camo and dinner is beans and wishes again, it's rather irrelevant.

why my small purse has been opened a bit to buy b-stickers for Bernie
and send a little bit for E.W.
It may not do a lot, but I feel better and more honest.

…is that they deserted the party to vote for Reagan.
Neither the Democratic Party nor organized labor has recovered from that debacle.

We need new people like Elizabeth Warren and yes I know she said she's not running. I'm hoping when it's closer Bernie and Elizabith will run.

to get the momentum behind a Warren campaign, a Sanders campaign or an O'Malley campaign.

candidate... but if Hillary wins the primary, I will work for her!

we have about 15 months to draft a candidate that isn't Hillary. The time is now, and I'm picking and choosing. O'Malley, Warren, Sanders ... there are PLENTY of good candidates besides Hillary.

Not even close. The Iowa Caucus is Feb. 1,2016. That is 14 months from now. A candidate will have to start campaigning about 2-3 months from now.

is too late when 14 months needs to be happening.

We will have some candidates, and they will include Hillary, but they will include somebody else, too.

...and if a viable primary challenger emerges, you can be sure I'll be supporting him/her.

But we know the kind of damage the Republicans have done. And if they get the presidency in 2016, the destruction will be complete (Paul Ryan Budget, massive cutbacks and selloffs of infrastructure, privatization of the Postal Service and Amtrak, privatization of Social Security, etc.). The only viable way to staunch the bleeding at this point is to hold noses and vote a straight-Dem ticket in 2016, even if some of those Dems are not particularly appealing (and in fact, repulsive.) Once we do that, THEN we can start subjecting the Third Wayers to primaries.

I don't like 3rd Wayers, and I'm going to do everything I can to defeat them.

If you want Liberals and Progressives, you stump for them, you don't cower and pass yourself off as a supporter of third way politics to get votes.

I'm not, and as things shake out, I'll vote for who I can, but until then, I'm not a mealy-mouth Democrat. I'm not going to stand up for 3rd way right wing Dems.

I have at least 15 months to preach about why anybody but Hillary should be the Democratic nominee, and by God, I'm going to use all of them.

Last edited Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

to stand up to the inevitable. I did it against Republicans, and I'll do it against a "Democrat".

Remembering her time in the service. Her and John McCain get together once in a while to talk about war wounds over some suds.

she and her husband started playing the race card. Then I was through with both she and Bill.

I watched all of their shenanigans on television, and it disturbed me greatly.

Thank you, the current dose of warmongering is so screwed up. We're arming al-Queda so we can fight the other terrorists over there instead of fighting al-Queda and the Taliban with weapons over here.

Oh wait, I thought we were fighting them over there so that they didn't get weapons to fight with. It's enough to make a sane person think they have stepped into the Twilight Zone.

Its called bringing Freedom and American Style Democracy to countries that have oil or other natural resources like cheap labor.

That's exactly it.

Not sure I understand this. They're not clones.

I have very little patience with people who work against the Democratic party.

I disagree with Hillary.

After seeing the pass Wall Street got under President Obama, why would I want a person that seems to be even to the right of him?

They aren't clones. Hillary stands to the wrong side of more things than President Obama does, in my opinion, so no, more wrong isn't going to get my support.

We have a good two years before a new President gets elected. Let's have someone that isn't entrenched into third way ideas and Republican leaning warhawk tendencies..

He lucked out that he wasn't in the Senate during the time of the debate about the IWR, so he could speak out against it freely. Hlllary and other Dems who voted for it did so because they knew that the Senate was about to be taken over by the Rethugs -- and they would pass an IWR with no restrictions at all.

Other than the IWR, Hillary has a record that is more progressive than either Barack or Bill.

How much worse could it have been?

unless he discovered weapons of mass destruction.

He never found them, so he just ignored the conditions. That wasn't the fault of the Senate.

But the Senate Dems were between a rock and a hard place. They could be on record with an IWR that required Bush to find weapons of mass destruction . . . .or they could wait for the incoming Senate to pass one that gave him a complete blank check.

In actuality, it made no difference which option they chose. But politically, they made a mistake, because they've been blamed for that vote ever since. Too many people have forgotten the context.

No. No.
Millions of people around the whole earth were in the streets protesting. People who were not invited to the media made statements of fact against the horrific idea of invading Iraq. Millions of people, millions, were smarter than Hillary Clinton and the rest that got sucked in by a stupid, ignorant grotty little man.

NO SALE.

in January and gone to war in March. There was nothing any Dem could do to stop him.

If her vote didn't matter, she should have voted against the war and stand up for something that did matter.

Even if EVERY Dem stood against it, Bush would still have invaded Iraq, except that he would have had the blank-check IWR he wanted.

Instead, he will live with the fact that he violated the resolution when he went to war.

"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men". ~ Ella Wheeler Wilcox

The bill was entitled The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Dancing around it doesn't change the fact that it was an authorization for war.

if weapons of mass destruction were found.

He violated the terms of the resolution, but the then-Republican majority didn't care.

Her vote was as craven as it was opportunistic. Here, let her convince you:

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/

I think theirs is more valid.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/133518/373/elections2008/Who-s-More-Progressive-Hillary-or-Obama-

Conservatives attacking Barack Obama and his supporters wanting change believe Obama is a more progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. Let's take a look at that, because their voting records in the Senate suggest otherwise.

Progressive Punch is a site that rates the legislative records of all Senators on progressive issues. For 2007-2008, Barack Obama is the 43rd most progressive out of 100 Senators. # 44 is Joe Lieberman. After #50, they are all Republicans, except for Tim Johnson. (Overall, his ranking is 88% or 24 out of 99, possibly suggesting he has become less progressive over time in the Senate.)

Hillary Clinton is rated far more progressive for 2007-2008, at #29. Her score is 90% to Obama's 81%. Overall, she ranks 17 out of 99, with a 91% progressive voting record, to his 24 out of 99 and an 88% progressive voting record.).

Obama's weakest score: On human rights and civil liberties he's at 75%, and #42 out of 99. One reason: in 2005, he voted "no" on a bill to cut funding for a new $36 million maximum security prison at Guantanamo.

SNIP

And this sentence: "As legislative politics scholar Sarah Binder notes, this does not comport with Poole and Rosenthal’s NOMINATE scores, nor does it correspond with Lewis and Poole’s more recent Optimal Classification technique (via Kieran Healy), both of which show Obama to be much closer to the median Democrat."

I smell 2008 redux in the repackaging (reads distortion) of Hillary's actual record. Her IWR vote disqualifies her from being charactized as a liberal and if there's a god the presidency. And, no, that doesn't make people single-issue voters. Her work on the TPP, her duplicitous push for Keystone, and in particular her hubris re: foreign policy in general aren't even in the ballpark of liberal. And the sustained effort in asserting otherwise is downright creepy.

What will matter are the positions she takes going forward, not those she had to take working for Obama.

that load of horseshit will go a penny to a ton before the electoral season even begins, and there won't be enough trucks or drivers parroting it before every conversation becomes a shithole.

It's up to good Dems to push back against it, because most of us know it's a stinking load of feces.

but he determined policy decisions. That is true for every President and Cabinet member.

"Great, NOW what is she not in support of? Let me guess, raising the minimum wage because it's a 'job killer'."

considering who we are talking about.

But I will support her if she gets the nomination or vote for a conservative and get two conservative jystices

You have to remember, there is plenty of time for other good Democratic candidates to run in the primary

That said, there's a long, long road between now and then.

and if you lean Schweitzer, Recursion, I think you have every right to support him, push him as a candidate and help him get elected.

What appeals to you about him? I don't know anything about him - I might support him, too, if you could elaborate on his positions.

Thanks in advance .