There's nothing huge here, I see them all as pretty safe and very obvious, but not particularly courageous or awe-inspiring.

Number one surprises me, I'd like to hear more specifics.

Number five concerns me, we keep what works? What about the rest of Obamacare?

I think it all works, so far, just needs to be expanded.

lots of wiggle room in there.

even small changes like these, anymore.

There's such a stranglehold on the political process by the wealthy elites and the right, I'm doubting any president (whoever it is) can get anything accomplished that doesn't advance their interests first.

She has the mic, as it were, and could intimidate them all to hell.

If she wanted to.

And therein lies the rub.

I wonder if $200,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs constitute unaccountable money in politics. Doubtful. Also, is this the same former Secretary who plans to raise $2,500,000,000 for her presidential bid?

Well, if anything could get the GOP behind campaign finance reform, that might be it.

besides, most of that money is spent with their supporters in corporate media for ads.

There is absolutely no double standard between saying "It would be a good thing if raising a large amount of money was not necessary* to run a viable political campaign" and recognising that, at present, it is.


*For some value of "necessary" - it's possible for a political campaign to succeed without money, but more funding makes a significant difference to the chance of success.

That's funny considering it concerns so many of us. Also there is the Clinton's affiliation with the Pete Peterson group. You know, Pete Peterson the old billionaire that imagines he can take it with him when he dies. Pete's main focus is to eliminate Social Security.

It's just the ones she mentioned in Iowa this week.

^H

You and Clinton.



Sid

She is indisputably aware that that is a political impossibility.

I do heartily support her call for paid family leave.

Much of it is too vague to assess.

^T^H^I^S ^H^A^S ^B^E^E^N ^A ^G^O^O^D ^S^T^A^R^T

The disadvantage of having a long track record is people can compare what you say today with what you did back then.

Boy, that was hard!!!

Were you expecting someone to produce a laundry list of statements that do not exist?

You didn't show anything. You would have to compare old statements and actions vs. new statements and actions. You said "The disadvantage of having a long track record is people can compare what you say today with what you did back then."

Now you're saying they "do not exist." Which is it?

Now: Clinton says these 7 things are vitally important.
Then: Clinton doesn't list any of these things as vitally important. By not talking about them.

You: You didn't show that she said they were unimportant back then because you didn't quote her! Nevermind the not talking about them part.

The entire point is these topics were so unimportant in her Senate campaign that they were not discussed during that campaign. She did not introduce any "free community college" legislation, for example.

Now, some are pedantic - she obviously could not expand on the ACA before the ACA passed. But health care reform in general is not new, and she could have campaigned on that for Senate. Or introduced bills to advance it. After all, a "lower Medicare eligibility age to birth" bill has been introduced into every Congress since Medicare was created. It's never gotten out of committee. Still gets introduced.

People evolve. It's entirely possible that her priorities have changed. How about explaining to us why they changed? That would make this appear to be a genuine shift instead of obvious pandering.

... your first complaint is that HRC obviously didn't consider certain things to be important because she didn't talk about them.

Your next complaint (down thread) is that when she does speak, "words are cheap", and "we're constantly lied to by politicians".

The perfect example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think that says more about your attitude than it does about Hillary.

The sources you've provided, the objective evidence presented and the mature presentation of your rebuttal is becoming dramatically typical of the in-depth counter-premises I'm witnessing this week.

I'm guessing that's what happens when one would rather make a clever point than be accurate.

Now, that may itself lead to other things, like "Equal pay problems aren't new". But at least it's an explanation for why priorities changed.

It is always damn if she does or damn if she doesn't with some.

We're constantly lied to by politicians of all stripes. This isn't a "Clinton thing". Obama said pretty things that he did not follow through on. So did W. So did FDR. So did Lincoln.

Saying what people want to hear today is not a good insight into the politician's actual priorities. As a result, we're left with teasing out those actual priorities from their concrete actions in the past, instead of their promises of the future.

"Saying what people want to hear today is not a good insight into the politician's actual priorities. As a result, we're left with teasing out those actual priorities from their concrete actions in the past, instead of their promises of the future."

This stuff has been a party plank for decades. It's nothing new or interesting. It's only just now getting the number of votes that make it feasible to accomplish.

It would also lead to follow-ups like "Why were you not 'leading the charge' instead of waiting for the winds to change?". Which again can have perfectly reasonable answers.

In other words, we'd gain much more insight into what Clinton actually believes and is willing to do in order to further those beliefs.

But they all are pretty darn "small-ball" -- interest group triangulations.
How about something a bit more substantive?

1. Does HRC support the corporate state agenda, e.g., the TPP? (yes)
2. Does HRC support the national security state and its penchant for violence? (yes)
3. Does HRC support policies & programs needed to truly combat climate change? (no)
4. Does HRC support breaking up the mega-banks and a securities transaction tax? (no!)
5. Does HRC support increasing Social Security payments, decreasing SS taxes to 1980 levels? (uhh)
6. Does HRC support having a prison population that is now over 1 million people? (yes)
7. etc

Can we truly afford another 8 years of stalling? Of run-around?
Bill Clinton perfected the run-around, and it was called "small-ball" remember?
Why should we think we'll get *anything* that is different from Bill's "small-ball"?
He's her number one advisor, and that's all he knows.

Noone is saying that HRC is a change-agent --- she's *all about* continuity.
However we desperately NEED a change-agent now, right now, to play "big-ball".
^B^E^R^N^I^E^S^A^N^D^E^R^S

There's some good clarity. Helpful, thanks.

The shame! He can do better than that

Ole Bern was running!

The other side doesn't even give a rat's ass about some of this. Most of this. Hell, ALL of this.

Though I expect that's a movement that needs to come from below. Politicians who benefit from the current campaign finance system aren't likely to want to do away with it entirely. We as a people must work to accomplish that.

If that the best she can come up with, she should stay the fuck home and help her son in law run his hedge fund.

Unfortunately, you won't be the last to tell a women that either.

Maybe she can make some nice cookies and dandle her grandkid on her knee, eh?

Fie! You may not be aware just how offensive your words are. Or maybe you are aware of that...who can say?

If "unaccountable money" simply means the source is anonymous, that really doesn't do very much to end the system of legalized bribery that our elections have become.

If there's going to be an effort towards Constitutional Amendment, let's work on a more effective and more comprehensive fix for what ails our democracy -- including gerrymandering and voter suppression.

"unaccountable money" I am so completely done with this "slight of hand speak" I would suggest this means "accountable bribes" are ok...? Yes, sorry that's Hillary speak. My mother taught me 55 years ago that "Non disclosure" is as good as a Lie period. Yes, This is Non-dis-closer that is exactly what this is using this "word-smithing" its exactly what it is. And not a word about the repuke attempts to steal social security, or the ludicrous criminal trade deal... the most important issues to most Americans, IMHO.

Love it.

I said no pie in the sky crap. Happy Friday.

I'm already voting for you over the GOP based on this.

Locally it's like pulling teeth to try and get people to actually focus on the issue. Granted it's a bit easier after Citizens United, but it's still been an uphill battle. "Super Pacs" had a lot of lower tier people drooling at the prospects initially. Then reality has slowly been sinking in over time. Realistically this isn't something a president can do on their own, it's going to take a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but that won't ever happen if we cannot get people into office willing to vote on an amendment in the first place. Which will never happen if we cannot make this an issue the majority of citizens are up in arms over.

This is going to help out people fighting to bring this issue to the the attention of others. Depending on which way she ends up taking the narrative, it could help out a lot. I'm encouraged by the inclusion and hopeful as to the effect it will have.