No age or gender discrimination for her. Doing quite well, by all outward indicators.

And many of them didn't rise up from the working and middle classes, their riches were handed to them.

Give me good old fashioned influence peddling and industrial-scale bribe taking (of course artfully done to skirt within picometers of the edge of legality - takes SKILL!) any day over that scourge of inherited wealth.

I suspect silver spoons see things a bit differently though.

I think Clinton is on a career path, not a public service path.

After all working is for us plebes.

I am just noting the difference between the man or woman who rises by the dint of hard work to the man or woman who rises by clipping their coupons.


Aren't we the party that argues for rigorous estate taxes to discourage the propagation of intergenerational wealth?

Those who rose to the top echelon of society through perceived pluck and determination tend to believe that if they did it anyone can, and don't acknowledge the help they got along the way.
FDR KNEW he was born on third base, and felt an obligation to help the society that put him there.

I fully acknowledge that there are counter examples (The Bushes come to mind). I'm just saying that the rags to riches route isn't a guarantee of progressive values.

I respect the poster who showed her home, immensely. But, sorry, the fact the Clintons have done well, don't say shit about anything. Had we had an internet in 1936, the same bullshit about FDR's wealth would have have made his campaign impossible. Glad that didn't happen. Fact is, no one at the bottom 50% is going to have a chance to win. But I am only been a student of politics since I voted for George McGovern in 72...what do I know?

It's not like Bill invented the iPhone or something. He's selling access and quiet lobbying power. People don't pay for him to speak, they pay to meet him and make connections. In a more honest age, that was called graft.

What access is he selling?

Maybe people like to hear inspirational people?

Has Pat made $100m over 15 years by making speeches too?

He has amassed a 80 million dollar fortune, another working class kid done good.

If it doesn't matter how you make your money, we should all be in love with the Kochs.

Except, of course, to obscure the basic issue of making $100m through graft.

Forgive me, it's probably unseemly to call trading on the office of the president and naked influence peddling graft these days. You have my apologies.

They've massively increased the family fortune. The point is that if all we're going to do is celebrate that somebody made money, we should be celebrating those hallowed "job creators", David and Charles Koch.

If you don't think she has age and gender discrimination against her you haven't been paying attention.

that she's too old, or posting pictures from Rethug sites of her wearing pantsuits.

Ageism and sexism is deeply ingrained.

She's the one who said it was so difficult to carry an extra phone for official business. Remember? Had nothing to do with sexism - that's something you read into it and apparently still carry around with you.

(or however many there were) was clearly a sexist attack on her appearance.

That's why it's usually Rethug sites that post that picture. Most progressives aren't sexist. Just some, unfortunately, even here on DU.

As for your accusation that it was sexist, that's just your own cheap smear against another DUer. Please play like an adult.

And if a "progressive" doesn't understand why mocking a female candidate because of wearing pantsuits is sexist, then it's hopeless.

Being "dead broke" and all.

Park Ridge, IL where she grew up is hardly hardship land.

those tulips are really pretty. Mine never grow that tall.

Beautiful.

I mean late...

you want a bunch of blue links?

I'll pass.

unions, sick and family leave, introduced and sponsored a minimum wage hike four times, voted against Bush tax cuts,voted against repealing the estate tax... and much more

Clinton helped author this monstrous piece of dangrous shit that needs to be buried deep.

It is NAFTA on steroids.. It means jobs will be lost for Americans... and no way to sue the companies if TPP passes.

Forget it, OKNancy, Clinton is radioactive.

maybe people will take you seriously.

You can't even parody this nonsense anymore.

2+2=5

War is Peace!

Ignore the record, ignore the policies, ignore history and reality itself.

What absolute garbage we are fed now, on a regular basis, with a straight face, through every possible media.

This parade of the absurd is the revolting spectacle that results when corporatism buys government and media....when journalism is systematically strangled and replaced with a corporate-funded propaganda machine.

She was working at the behest of her boss, the President.
If you actually read what she said and wrote in the beginning, it is not at all like what it has turned into.

She is an AUTHOR of the TPP.

[font size=3]Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.[/font size]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

The verdict is in: most U.S. workers would see wage losses as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping U.S. "free trade" deal under negotiation with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That's the conclusion of a report just released by the non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

But hey, Clinton's a superhero!!! From a distance, she pulls strings on the negotiations!! AMAZING!!!

Never let facts get in the way of a good inventive rant...

Cough....

So you give me a portentous link that doesn't mention Clinton ONCE!

You're slipping! Or is that all you've got...?

of a private citizen to influence said "trade" talks?

(BTW, while shutting down an incorrect argument is not childish, name-calling is.)

I noted that she's not a SECSTATE, hasn't been for a while, that the SECSTATE is someone else, and that she's a private citizen.

Your little distraction of a sad lame little link wasn't talking about private citizens, in and of themselves. It was talking about corporate influencers in the private sector who have been pulled into these negotiations as reviewers. None of them are Hillary Clinton, so your point WAS childish. It's not "name calling" when it's an accurate assessment of your conduct.

I'm a private citizen, too, and I didn't write the TPP either.

You're gonna hate November 2016. BTW.

So it wasn't you who wrote that?

DU's database must be having issues.

Ignore context, Manny. You always do.

If that's not what you meant, then that's not what you should have written.

and if you're not deliberately obfuscating, you're having trouble following along. What I wrote makes total sense to anyone with the ability to read the entire conversation contextually. If you're having trouble, go back and try reading again. Maybe you'll get it on a second read.

Unfortunately, your seem to have not wrote what you meant; nothing that can't be overcome with some practice. Try setting aside the things you write for a time, then reading them with fresh eyes - you'll get the hang of it after a bit.

want to.

Your problem, not mine.

Follow the conversations instead of jumping in with your little "gotcha" remarks. You'll get the hang of it after a bit.

would have anything to do with international trade agreements. How silly can people be?

[font color=red]Reject Third Way propaganda: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

Or maybe you should stop rolling round on the floor, laughing...and do a little reading on the topic?

That Secretary of State isn't sitting around the table writing the agreement, either. He's got other shit on his plate.


The TPP is still being "written" -- i.e. negotiated.

And it will take the Senate to make it happen after the representatives from the included nations finish their work.

But yeah...blame CLINTON~! The Great And Powerful Clinton, Who Controls EVERYTHING~~!

Even Bill's deal with Newt to cut Social Security benefits couldn't get through Congress.

What's the world coming to when you can't get Congress to steal money from old people?

Such a simplistic POV. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand. You do that a lot. It's noticed.

What's the world coming to, when that kind of 'logic' passes for conversation?

The TPP has been around for some time now. Maybe you should practice what you are preach and do a little reading yourself

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

Not just by the US, but by all the countries involved in the negotiations.

Actually, that article is very laudatory towards Clinton's work in selling US business interests overseas--the kind of thing that makes American workers very happy. At least someone gives a shit about US jobs...!

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

Who was SOS two years ago? Keep trying, you are almost there. I see that you have now found page 2.

And the TPP is still being written, by all the nations involved in the negotiations.

Every country involved wrote a draft. The last two years have been all about deciding whose sentences get into the final version.

only after making a fool of themselves by claiming that I made a mistake and that the above quote didn't appear in the article linked in the above post(what MADem deleted). Oops, someone forgot to look on page 2.

The reality disconnect is unbelievable with these folks

read--particularly people who work in US industry and would like to keep their jobs.

and our wages still haven't recovered from that pile of crap trade deal. From 2000-2010 we lost 50,000 factories with 25 or more workers.

People are opposing this pile of crap because they want to keep their jobs.

On top of that we got slaughtered in the '94 elections after the last Clinton sold out the American worker.

Damn, these people never learn from their mistakes.

Why do you assume that the Little Woman will just ape her Powerful Husband's opinions and views?

And..."these people?"

Really?

"These people" are DEMOCRATS. And SECSTATE Clinton was selling US business overseas, so she's hardly an enemy of the American worker. Unless keeping US businesses viable and growing is now, in the Up-is-Down DU, somehow "bad?"

The Clinton's own words

or is Hillary now disowning Bill?

Bill even hired people to help companies move our jobs away.

OUR TAX DOLLARS WERE SPENT TO SHIP OUR JOBS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY

and you want to try it again?

He had the advantage of her superb intellect; it's not her fault he didn't take her advice. She wasn't the "co-President." He won't be, either.

Still not seeing where you're going. Your point is not taken.

Maybe you need to try again? I'd start by re-reading your "gotcha" article, the one that talks about all the hard work HRC put in to boost American businesses.

Or maybe this will help you gain a bit of understanding, because plainly, you don't have the first iota of an idea with regard to HRC's positions on jobs:

Boosted their bottom line and did little for the workers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/04/the_104_billion_refund.html

They said this would create lots of jobs. It didn't. More third way/Republican policies that fail to live up to their name.

It wasn't anyone named Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Creation_Act_of_2004

Who wrote the law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Thomas

Russ Feingold voted for that bill, too, and a lot of Dems ducked the vote.

Funny how you have to go back over a DECADE to find anything to crab about.

wants us to believe that that all those corporate dollars had no influence on her decision(she really said that last time she ran). She sounds like a cross between Mitt Romney(corporations are people) and John Roberts(money doesn't necessarily corrupt politics) yet some here want us to believe she is somehow similar to Elizabeth Warren.

da plane, da plane welcome to fantasy island.

You are the one who brought up her voting record. After closer examination, you now want to blame Bush, Feingold or someone else. It's always someone elses fault(another Republican tactic). Pathetic.

was done while she was in office.

It doesn't mean she directed the film.

So, yeah--sorry! Your point failed.

about her involvement and support for the TPP and TTIP. Can you show me anything that indicates that she was in any way involved in the making of the movie "the butler"? No? Of course not. Why? Because working on the film "the butler" is not something she did. Trade and the TPP are things she did/was involved with under the auspices of her office.


This is not rocket science. I have evidence to back up my claims. You are using the rankest of rhetorical tricks- one so obvious it's an embarrassment.

So, no. Not sorry, but your "point" wasn't even a point. Doesn't even qualify as a germane response. And yeah, gigantic fail on every front.

And the TPP negotiations continue, and the deal continues to be written and re-written.

WITHOUT HER.

So why aren't you carping at the people who are involved in it now? Why are you even "blaming" a cabinet official for following the directives and desires of the Chief Executive?

I haven't seen a single "Waaaaaah!!!!!!! KERRY!!!!! TPP!!!!!!" post here at DU.

Not one.

Why is that, I wonder? I just have to begin to suspect that it's all about HDS, not the TPP.

IN OFFICE IS FUCKING GERMANE?

[font size=3]Her predatory TPP will ensure robust DOWNWARD MOBILITY for many, many more Americans. [/font size]

[font size=3]Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.[/font size]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

The verdict is in: most U.S. workers would see wage losses as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping U.S. "free trade" deal under negotiation with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That's the conclusion of a report just released by the non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

One cannot simultaneously want the TPP and economic justice for the 99%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4318351

One cannot simultaneously want the TPP and economic justice for the 99% [View all]

They are violently mutually exclusive.

They absolutely know it's awful for the already-eviscerated 99%, otherwise they wouldn't hide behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy. They are sociopaths.

Wake up! We are being disembowled by sick, sick people. If we don't fight back, and quick, we will be dinner.

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

[font size=7]NINETY PERCENT. [/font size]


And those are the ones who get to KEEP their jobs. As the links above show, we can expect massive job losses, as well.


THIS NATION CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE THIRD WAY CORPORATISTS MASQUERADING AS DEMOCRATS, when inequality already looks like this:

There are no ladders at all... or at a minimum, the existing ladders are missing all the top rungs.

as she's talking about "some communities" and "the poor", which excludes them.

My seemingly innocuous thread offended some of the the ten percent who are upset with the one percent because they aren't one of them.

I'm not one of the 1%. Nor am I offended that I'm not one of them.

What does piss me off, is her whining about being "dead broke". I have been dead broke. She knows jack shit about being dead broke.
Presenting herself as such, is goofy. She's a privileged white woman. If she stopped trying to run away from that, I might give her a hairs breadth of respect.

What do you call it when you owe millions more than you have?

To me (and most of the rest of the world) that's "dead broke" ... even when/if I know that I can generate a significant pay day in a relatively short period of time.

It's comments like yours that are just like the right's declaring that someone can't be "poor" because they have a refrigerator, A/C, and a cell phone. And it goes a long way to making the case that you are, in fact, offended that you are not one of them.

Dead broke is worrying about having your water shut off or making the rent. It's wondering if that twinge is a sinus headache or a bad tooth, then wondering if you can afford to have the tooth pulled if it's gone bad. It's eating Ramen constantly because your beater car needed a repair.

Rich people may be financially embarrassed, but seldom are they "dead broke". To compare their situation to that of people who are in or near poverty is both dumb and deeply offensive.

whenever Hillary is the subject of one of these adulation posts. Hillary was never poor and has converted access and reflected prestige into considerable personal wealth.

And finding a bag of chips with only half of them gone in the gas station trash can is a significant boost to your daily meal plan.

and completely unsurprising.

Did I call it or did I call it?

The only thing that surprised me is that it took so long for them to figure out the WhatAboutMe angle without actually saying WhatAboutMe.

How about you just wiggle on back to freeperland where you came from.

Why don't you make me?

I will add that in the extremely rare situations DemocratSinceBirth insults/disrespects someone he doesn't do it from the anonymity of an internet connection.

Now that we got that housekeeping out of the way.

My old man, god bless him, quit school in the ninth grade, left home, and was effectively emancipated at the age of fifteen years old when he be got a job as a stevedore. My mom, god bless her, had a I Q of 151, was placed in Rapid Advance, and graduated from high school at fifteen years old. In another milieu she could have been anything she wanted to be. In the milieu she found herself in she had to take a job as a bookkeeper to support her widowed mom and younger brother.

I grew up in what folks call a shotgun shack. My dad died when I was fifteen and left my mom and I virtually penniless... I worked my way through college and grad school tending bar, bouncing at biker bars, and selling suntan lotion at Orlando and Daytona Beach resort pools.

The experience of most on this board is closer to the experience of the one percent than it can ever be to mine and what's it like to be a member of the working class is not an abstraction to me.

Claiming the poor are just jealous of the 1% is a tactic used by fox news and was used by... wtf is his name? The billionaire Repuke who ran against Obama last time? Whatever, it is not a tactic I can see originating from anyone on the left side of the political spectrum.

They couldn't care less about the one percent. The one percent are an abstraction to them. They are too busy securing the necessities of life. It goes to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs that before a person can become self actualized (affect the world around him or her) he or she has to meet his or her basic needs; i.e. food, shelter, and clothing. If you're at the stage of worrying about how you are going to get pediatric care for your new born you aren't on the internet waxing about the capitalist state.

I was referring to the the top ten percent, those Americans who earn an individual income of over $87,000.00 per year. They have times to think about such abstractions.

Several posters turned a discussion about inequality and rigid social stratification this into a impromptu discussion about English High Teas. i assure you they been to more of those exclusive events than me.

I have never made the money you claim it takes to think about and discuss these issues. And, every activist I have ever met has not met those income figures either. Not sure I buy your line of reasoning.

Most of the time when contemporary politicians talk about providing for the poor, it reeks of misplaced noblesse oblige. Why? It's always paired with cuts for everyone else. That's not a serious concern for the poor, it's a serious strategy to divide people from the outset by setting the means of survival for some against the means of not becoming poor for others.

You know how we'll know a politician is actually serious about the poor? When he or she says that poverty undermines both our democracy and our economy and proposes a program that will benefit the vast majority of citizens in the effort to end poverty. If it doesn't benefit most people, it'll never last. Social Security is hard to kill because LBJ and Sam Rayburn made it a middle-class program in the 50s. Welfare got "reformed" because it was explicitly targeted toward the poor. That is the difference between a politician who's serious and one who just wants to sound serious.

a program to aid the poor and/or disenfranchised/shut-out should be a program for the poor and/or disenfranchised/shut-out. What you are talking about is bribing the middleclass to enact a program that further entrenches the disparity status quo, while benefiting the middleclass.