Hillary Clinton is clearly pointing out that she is deeply concerned with social issues in her video. But, we knew that, actually, even though we tend to forget such things at times.

The economy is a complex thing, and we live in a de facto corporate economy. No President can change that fact. Things like the Middle East, including Iran, exist. ISIS exists. Discord on an international basis exists. Again, such disputes between nations are not something a President can simply address and change. Our economic system is not going to change in any drastic way any time soon. We must deal with it as it exists and try to make it work better, but it's not going away.

Hillary Clinton has an outstanding record in the Senate with social issues. As Secretary of State, she did a great job of keeping the war cries down and making international issues less warlike. We can't dictate to other nations, and we shouldn't be doing that. Instead, we can only facilitate diplomacy, which appears to be Clinton's approach.

I'm embarrassed that so much time is being spent on silly arguments about logos, appearance, and other nonsensical issues here on DU. We can do much better than that, I think.

I'm not supporting any particular Democratic primary candidate at this point. I'll be watching to see who I'll be supporting in the General Election. That will be decided by the convention next year. I get one vote in my own primary. That's it. I'll decide on that vote much closer to that primary election day. Not right now.

and complained about by some people, mostly on the right. Some people have their mind made up, and are only hearing what they want to hear. They disregard the rest (apologies for paraphrasing the song lyric).

n/t

voted for it as well. When I look at that, I consider the situation that was in place at that time and the information that was available. Frankly, that vote is not a consideration for me in an election so many years later, given the information available at that time. You're free, of course to treat it as you choose to treat it. You asked for my opinion, and you have it.

There is much more to this race than that vote made well over a decade ago. This election is not about 2002. It is about the next 8 years. Think about that, not what happened 13 years ago. That's my recommendation.

There is much more to this race than that vote made well over a decade ago.

Now, in 2015, I am looking ahead, not back. George W. Bush's ego and determination to go to war in Iraq was wrong. 58% of Democrats voted for the IWR. I didn't like that at the time. In retrospect, I imagine that almost all of that 58% regrets that vote. But it's 2015. Moving forward. That's my issue.

past actions are important in how they effect the future.

There were a lot of people who knew at the time how terribly wrong following GWB to war was. Its bothersome that a person who should have been informed and acting carefully in the best interests of the country was unable to make that determination correctly.

But setting that aside, a person who voted against that war and regrets it may look more carefully in the future.

But a person who is fooled once and does not learn from it may be easily fooled again in the same way.

I wish I knew which it was. Does she regret her choice?

Don't you suppose that's true? I'll wait to see what she says.

The press certainly isn't interested in revisiting the issue, seeing as they showed even worse judgement than she did at the time.

Whoever comes to the front of the Republican clown show isn't going to challenge her on that issue. They are more likely to ask why she didn't take a gun and storm Benghazi with Bush than to point out that the Bush war was a massive fuck up with no justification.

And, at this point, im not expecting her to have a significant challenge from the left, so theres noone to bring it to the front from that side.

She probably knew at the time that the WMD thing was a lie and that the invasion was a bad idea. But politically it seemed at the time that opposing the war was a potential career-ending move for anyone with presidential ambitions. You have to think back on the political climate back then. This was "freedom fries" time. How things change.

So she made a political decision, to support the war, in order to avoid being painted as soft on defense in some future presidential campaign. And the rest of the Dems who had presidential ambitions did the same.

"But a person who is fooled once and does not learn from it may be easily fooled again in the same way."

If your explanation is accurate, then all someone would need to do with President Hillary Clinton is convince her that avoiding war with Iran would be a career ending move, and we get to start world war III and make lots of money for the sponsors.

Freedom fries were mocked the day they were invented. There were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets with a different opinion. It was bigger than occupy, as far as my eyes could tell. the political climate was being manipulated. And theres no reason to believe it can't be again.

Sooner or later, it will come to the surface and will be a big embarrassment to Hillary. I am assuming there is a copy somewhere. If not, I'm pretty sure that others, especially the Code Pinkers who were in the room at the time (there were quite a number of them) will bring it out and talk about it. Watching that video was the moment that I lost interest in Hillary as a presidential candidate I think. She was pretty rude in my opinion.

And now she wants us to think that she just made a mistake.

She was warned.

I regretted it

Those Democrats who voted "yes" knew the evidence was bullshit. However, they were afraid that the war would go quickly and well and that their "no" votes would extinguish any presidential aspirations.

In other words, in pursuit of their own selfish ambitions they were willing to gamble the lives of American soldiers, not to mention countless Iraqis.

The Code Pink women stated that they had discussed the progress of the international weapons inspection team with that team and that Saddam was cooperating. An April 2004 Vanity Fair article on the days and weeks preceding our invasion of Iraq tells the story in full and affirms that Saddam was fully cooperating and that the very few unauthorized weapons (some missiles that were a bit too long if I recall) were to be destroyed. Bush rushed us in over the objections of the French and the rest is history.

Another bit of history that emerges from that video is Hillary's recognition at the time of the vote that Bush was rushing our economy into a crisis by fighting a war while lowering taxes. That was true. I did a lot of research on the Bush administration in 2004. Our economy was in trouble as the dot.com bubble burst or at least no longer fueled our economy beginning in 1999 or 2000. Remember the Bush tax cuts -- the revision of the bankruptcy bill. The time frame for those efforts to "goose" the economy is a bit hazy to me, but I recall that we were already headed toward a disastrous economy in Spring of 2004.

So, Hillary recognized the impending peril to our economy already before the Iraq War had started. But what did she do about it? Did she organize Democratic senators to bargain with Bush to raise the tax money to pay for the war or not get the Democratic votes to support his war resolution? No way.

Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren and her organizing senators and other members of Congress to support her proposals to improve economic fairness in our country. And she actually succeeded in getting the creation of a consumer bureau.

Hillary was not a leader. She was a good follower and a never-rock-the-boater in the Senate. But no leader.

Elizabeth Warren, freshman senator just like Hillary, immediately charged forward, organizing votes for reform proposals. She is the leader. Now I hope that you for one will see why I so strongly urge that Elizabeth Warren, whether she wants to run or not, should be our candidate. Hillary makes a good senator. She is simply not a leader. It isn't in her personality. And that is not surprising. Bill was a leader although he lead in the wrong direction on a number of issues. Still, Bill was a guy who thought to get people together on issues and could get things done. Hillary is too rigid to be a leader.

Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are better presidential material than Hillary. It isn't really an insult against Hillary. It is mostly a matter of talent and where Hillary fits.

It would be unusual to have a married couple in which both spouses are strong leaders. That was not the case with Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. Eleanor was the conscience and took charge more than did Hillary during Bill's presidency. But Eleanor rose to the occasion. What is more her marriage with Franklin Roosevelt was quite rocky as we know.

Two strong leaders in a marriage or any relationship can make things rocky. And, by the way, I am a great admirer of both Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. I'm just talking about personalities.

But I'm really not sure she wants to. I don't think she's merely being coy. While the uncertainty remains, she still has the bully pulpit though, which has been great.

I'd support Warren or Sanders for sure, even though I have some disagreements with both of them, just as I had issues with Dean, whom I supported nonetheless. I think people who oppose Hillary are seen as unrealistic and uncompromising. That's certainly not the case with me. But we all have to draw the line somewhere. And Hillary has gone way over mine. Enough is enough.

I'm also a fan of the Eleanor and Franklin, by the way. Especially Eleanor. Franklin wasn't afraid to have liberals in his cabinet and his Brain Trust, even though he was generally more conservative than they were. Recent Democrats seem reluctant to have any liberals in the cabinet and all too anxious to appoint corporatists and Republicans. I may be forgetting someone, but Robert Reich was probably the last liberal cabinet member. And even then, he was a free marketeer.

and expressed my own thoughts and fears.

Thank you.

I would probably feel better about it, if she acknowledged that much.

... as a "youthful indiscretion." She knew exactly what she was doing.

Words are all that matter in our political system...actions can just be ignored or rationalized away.

Their kids don't die in wars, and they have a nice job with a stock portfolio that will give them a comfortable retirement...and to whom the system has been good...and so words are all that matter.

But few of them are the undecided voter...and we will see how this plays in Peoria.

at least, if what they post is true.

who is better than Hillary on social issues?

I will be pushing to get one of those to run.

Warren is one of them.

Bernie, who might run as a Democrat, actually led the opposition of that war.

I would also support Russ Feingold.

It's time for you to stop regurgitating a past that has come and gone and focus on what we need to do now to deal with climate change, income inequality, universal healthcare, rebuilding our infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, getting the GOP out of women's reproductive decisions, and so much more. I'm tire of trolls like you, who add no value to the discussion. Get a grip.

It's the same shit we hear from Republicans about Bush's dismal record.

And, been her since 2004, so I'm one of the last people you should be calling a troll.

and you're not looking at her entire record. and I still think that you're a troll.

We needed Democrats to stand up to Bush in the Senate, and unfortunately Hillary wasn't one of them. That is a legitimate topic for debate when considering her foreign policy credentials.

(and her only punishment is not to be President) more important than our next 4/8 years?

With her vote for the IWR she proved that she is not to be trusted in matters of war and peace.

Our country would be much better off the next 4/8 years with a better Democrat in the White House.

they are never to be trusted again? By that standard, you must not be married, of instance, or never for very long, as they will prove they can never be trusted at some point.

I have never made a "mistake" that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead people and trillions of dollars of debt. The vote for war with Iraq cannot be compared, even remotely, to any decision the average person will ever make -- and certainly not the kind of mistakes related to domestic finances & family issues.

Presidents and US Senators have been put in a position of power, and have been entrusted with great responsibility. They have to make many decisions, and not all issues are equal. They can't be fully versed on every minute detail of relatively inconsequential policies, but matters of war and peace demand an effort to be as informed as possible and to exercise the best judgment.

The Bush administration had been beating the drums for against Iraq for months prior to October 2002. By that time, we here at DU knew all about the PNAC neocon agenda. We knew that assertions of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda were BS. There was no doubt that once given the authority, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would take us into an extremely ill-advised war.

There is NO excuse for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et al not to know this. They (take your pick):
a) were simply too incompetent to hold the office of US Senator
b) were on board with the neocon agenda
c) testing the political winds of the moment rather than doing the responsible thing the American people


Here's an analogy for you:
Your teenage daughter will begin dating boys. Would you rather she date a boy who earlier made a "mistake" that got his previous girlfriend in serious trouble, or a boy who, as far as you can tell, is a pretty good kid?

How can you trust a person to "deal with climate change, income inequality, universal healthcare, rebuilding our infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, getting the GOP out of women's reproductive decisions, and so much more" if that person showed bad judgment in dealing with a decision as momentous as the invasion of Iraq and a number of other issues on which Hillary showed bad judgment.

As I said above, somewhere out there is a Code Pink video in which women from Code Pink who had visited Iraq talked to Hillary Clinton about what they had seen there and told her that going into Iraq was wrong, a mistake. She left them in what in my opinion was a rude huff. It is that video that made me take a second look at Hillary. She was not good at listening to and dealing with ideas other than those set in her mind.

After watching that video, I did not feel and I do not feel now that Hillary has the ability to process information that displeases her or is inconvenient to her. She gets set in her mind as to right and wrong and is not as flexible in her thinking as she needs to be.

That is a very deep character trait.

Obama is, on the other hand, one who processes new ideas and information with interest and equanimity. It doesn't completely throw him off balance. Hence, under Obama (although I disagree with his choices for economic regulatory leaders and education leaders among other things), we have a new relationship with Cuba and South America, for the moment at least, internet neutrality, a functioning health care insurance system and many other policies like marriage equality, gender equality in the military, etc. that we would not have had under a president who thought less flexibly and rejected challenges to his thinking.

This is a matter of a character and personality defect in Hillary. It is shared by all, and I mean all of the potential Republican candidates.

+1

I would argue however, the past is an indicator

The things you talk about are important.
But why should people let Iraq go?
Why should one of the biggest debacles in U.S. history and post WW II history something that should be relegated to being in the past?
And who should get a pass? Everyone involved, some of the people, just Congress? Judith Miller? Should she get a pass now? Who deserves to be free of their involvement?

Most of those issues you posted about the vast majority of Democrats agree on
It's not like she is the only person who believes in all of those things

I would point out that in the past she has supported fracking which is detrimental to climate change.
At a lecture at Hamilton College she touted the benefits on fracking
In 2014 at the National Clean Energy Summit where she was keynote speaker, she referred to it as the 'Safe Bridge'
While she said she supported federal regulations she never pushed for any in the United States and pushed fracking in countries, like Bulgaria, where there is almost no regulation: The Global Shale Gas Initiative.
She hasn't stated an opinion on the Keystone Pipeline, so I'll leave that to when she does.
Though, the State Department did recommend that the Administration deny the permit in 2012 when she was Secretary of State. So, I think she probably opposes it.
Though I'm sure some people will claim it was some nefarious scheme to have it both ways. Bob Kibben, an opponent of the pipeline thinks she opposed it figuring the administration would ok it and she'd have cover.

I asked another Clinton supporter about her stances on
H1B Visa's. Does she support expanding them?
Waiting on the answer
According to CWA she has supported expanding the program in the past and never opposed expansion while in the senate or as Sec of State.
Like a lot of things in politics, I'd be curious if she has modified her position. I know and have read things from people who have supported something in the past and changed their positions later: Diane Ravitch and Charter Schools, the woman who opposed vaccines until her kids got whooping cough (story from Huffpo),

Free Trade Agreements, like TPP. Does she support them?
People she and her husband are close to like Larry Summers does.
There have been rumors that he'd find his way into her administration in some capacity related to economics
This is always going to be a tough one to get a clear grip on. As Sec of State she would have played an important role in the negotiations. Because the negotiations are kept secret, we are kind of left to guess what her position has been/is.

Does she think the repeal of the Banking Act of 1933 signed by Bill Clinton was such a hot idea
One of the provisions in the Banking Act was Glass-Steagall

Or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Did she/ does she support that
This was the act that 'reformed' welfare services for the poor. Insisted on draconian things like workfare

She voted for Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.
In fairness, only 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans had the good sense to vote against it. (Boxer, Dodd, Harkin, Durbin, Reed, Rockefeller, Feingold, Bill Nelson, Corzine, Wellstone, Dayton, Kerry. Kennedy, Sarbanes.) I was intrigued a bit that Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Brownback voted against it. 2 Republicans didn't vote on it.
Fortunately it failed. But it only did so because the Democrats added a provision to make it harder for anti-choice groups to discharge court fines related to felony convictions.
She said she voted for an overhaul to the bankruptcy system that would have made debt forgiveness more difficult for borrowers to obtain.
Clinton did not vote on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Though in 2008, she said she'd have voted No. The statement was derided by then Sen Obama who voted No.
There were 25 nays (All Democrats) and 1 not voting

As to moving on from her Iraq vote
I have friends who have lived in or have family that live/lived in the ME

They haven't moved on
Should they move on?
Should they say, 'What the hell! People we know lost their homes, our friends, everything we had. But we should just forget about it.'

Please tell me you didn't say that? This is emblematic of the ugly behavior of Clinton supporters.

Anybody who would dare oppose the anointed Hillary becoming President or challenge her policy positions or record must be a troll...and they wonder why some of us are so strident against her.

She is unfit to be President. The proof is in the pudding; that's why they're so scared of her positions and her record.

It falls under the category of name calling, bullying, and harassment.

Her vote for the war doesn't disturb me any more than Obama's over the top spying on Americans, in that I totally and fundamentally disagree with both. Yes, she's not my preferred candidate - Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders - but I will support whoever has the "D" behind their name on the presidential ballot. There's no chance they will fuck us over more than anyone with an R behind their name.

... as did John Kerry, Joe Biden, and every Democrat (slightly less than half the total in House & Seante) who voted for the IWR in Oct 2002.

I will of course vote for the Dem nominee in the general election, but the IWR vote is inexcusable and unforgiovable AFAIC.

wouldn't have voted the same way back in 2002? You may be comfortable with, "well, I don't know for sure but at least I'm not supporting someone who did" but that is always the dilemma. Would the new candidate have done the same thing as the last candidate given the same set of circumstances?

... versus someone who may or may not be.

For example, you have a teenage daughter who will start dating boys. Would you rather have her date a boy with a record of physically abusing girls or someone who, as far as you can tell, is a good kid?

Getting back to the IWR vote, it was obvious by October 2002 that the supposed "grave and gathering threat" posed by Iraq was false propaganda. Claims of an alliance between Saddam & al Qaeda were pure BS, and the PNAC agenda was there for informed people to see.

Any US Senator who voted for the IWR:
a) Was ignorant of above
b) Was on board with the neocon agenda
c) Cast a vote based on the calculation that being a hawk was politically favorable

Take your pick, and make the case why that person has not forfeited my support. Remember to put that into the context of the consequences of this war.

......even a half dozen issues. To single out one thing and base such an important vote on that is short-sighted.

To deminstrat the importance of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, her name is being plastered all over the media and will be for weeks or months to come. A few weeks ago Cruz announced and it's almost forgotten, same thing to Rand Paul's announcement last week.

Anyone realize that Rubion announced this morning? Anyone talking about it much in the media? Not really.

It's a pretty big deal, not just a short-sighted single issue that I'm focusing on.

And, the media isn't talking about Hillary because they love her.

....14 year old issue is shortsighted.

And I've mentioned this a thousand times here and elsewhere, people who claim that she (and others) "voted for the Iraq war" should search out the AUMF and read it.

To put it in a few words, the AUMF gave the bush administration the authority to go to war ONLY after Iraq failed to comply with several UN resolutions and only AFTER Iraq failed to comply with a whole slew of conditions.

Unfortunately those conditions WERE complied with but the bush administration didn't care.

Read the document.

That's four so far. You want more?

... she is NOT a liberal politician in my book!

IMO, NO DEMOCRAT should EVER vote for war.

Wish it was the only for Hillary.

Or should the US have signed a peaceful alliance with Japan and Germany?

I agree, btw, that no other wars were justifiable, but WW2 was as righteous as a war can be.

had you been of voting age back then.

Personally, it isn't going to make or brake my vote alone, but to expect it not to come up at all is downright facile.

Actions vs. Words.

She's been remarkably quiet about many major topics that are affecting the US and the world, at least as far as I know.

If she'd come out with a clear voice about the banking fraud and how to fix it, I'd give her more credence. At this point I feel that she's just slightly adjusting course to try to scoop up some of the Warren or Sanders voters.

Most recently, she was not in any public office. Before that, she was Secretary of State, which meant that she was doing the President's work, not her own. Now, she is a primary candidate for President. You can expect to hear her comments on many topics over the next few months.

What will she say about issues that concern you? I do not know. I suggest listening to what she does say, though.

It's not uncommon for people who do not hold public office to keep their silence about political issues. Now that she's an announced candidate, she'll be speaking on all significant issues. You can choose whether or not to believe what she says, of course.

As I said in my post, I'm not supporting any candidate during the primary campaign. I'll cast my vote on primary election day, based on who is running and what I think of their chances of winning. After that, I will be in full support of whoever gets the actual nomination at the convention. That's what I suggest for everyone, but some people will have favorites in the primary race. I hope they do not burn their bridges during that race by declaring that they won't support the Democratic nominee in the general election. That's not a productive thing to do and will not help any cause.

The primary campaign is just getting started. There will be much to listen to. That's what I'll be doing.

They've been focusing on social issues almost exclusively and that isn't going

to cut it much longer.

it might look to some like someone with no center just going where the political winds take her, it looks more to me like someone who sees how the country is changing.

Teabaggery has run its course and we are all tired of the hatred. I remember town meetings and campaign stops that were taken hostage by rightwing operatives years ago and that stopped largely because your average citizen just got pissed at it.

The quiet people out there realize that after a once unimaginable 8 years of a black President and even more unimaginable gay marriage along with other advances into a civilized society we haven't gone straight to hell but are actually doing fairly well. Maybe a woman, even that Clinton woman, won't bring on the Apocalypse after all.

Regardless of some election wins on their side, they really have little to offer us.

Now, maybe we can get some advances in economic balance, healthcare availability and some other basic stuff we should be doing instead of gassing on about nonsense.

And liberals should be completely behind the eventual nominee when it happens - Clinton is deserving of it more than others - and the current President as it now happens.

and more and more it seems the "safe" way to be liberal and more important than economic issues and issues of war and peace.

and we are getting absolutely clobbered in economics and war.

Let's see whether she continues Obama's union-bashing education policies. Ugggh.

Easy to support issues that won't cost her and her friends a penny. I'll wait for her speech on ensuring American workers get their share of corporate profits

No matter what logo, symbol and issues, the RWers will hate it. They hate everything that is not like them, think like them, "worship their GAWD" like them. Unfortunately, some on the left feel the same way. HRC will have non-stop venom spew onto her just like Pres O.

Some here talk about war, you ain't seen nothing if a GOPer gets in. They are already in your face warmongering with the help of RW social media. Social issues, screw that per the GOP party. Fixing the USA, say what? Profit, wars, death (as long its not my kid). Inequality is there middle name.

Republicans are doing a great (from a Republican point of view) job of defining their campaigns on the extreme right.

Hillary did not draw a line in the sand and say, this is as far left, center, or right that I will go. She did not try to define the terms and policies of the campaign.

I think it was a great first video.

come to center stage. We have many more ads coming, the announcement ad is very effective, more and more will be emphasized. Ever onward!!!

But then, I live in Los Angeles where a lot of similar videos are put together.

The mechanics of it distracted me. Where was Hillary?

I'm waiting for an announcement with some substance.

Did her handlers decide that Hillary's own personality would not draw as much positive attention as pretty pictures of Americans solving problems?

I thought the video was on the level of some YouTube ads. You know. The ones you watch before you watch a replay of a TV show on YouTube or on the internet.

As a commercial for a product, it did its job.

I felt it lacked a cohesive narrative. It was like a bunch of social bullet points, the final one being Hillary. I live in LA too, maybe associating yourself with real, culturally diverse, people seems more significant in other parts of the country.

FYI

I was rebutting the proposition that living in L A makes one a video critic any more than living in Tokyo makes one a master at judo.



FYI

I'm shocked

I lived right off Highland and DeLongpre. I also lived in Alhambra, Glendale, Koreatown, Los Feliz, Van Nuys, Burbank, Northridge, and Woodland Hills... My gf and i moved several times in less than one year because we didn't have enough money for an apartment and we were living in rented rooms.




Living in Hollywood didn't make me Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio either....BTW, I'm not the one that originally suggested living in LA made me a video guru.

Did I ever mention the time I taught Judo in Tokyo?

That's fucked up on so many levels...

We'll make this easy...

Your profile says you live in SoCal... Give me a time tomorrow and I will meet you... Try to make it near a stop on the Metro because I don't have a car...