You're much like the right in my opinion in that you have to have a boogie man or in this case a boogie woman.

Support your guy. Tell us how great he is. Maybe Hillary will give him a cabinet position.

I make 13.00 an hour/full-time and my wife makes 10.00 an hour/part-time.

It's disgusting listening to wealthy politicians quibbling and equivocating about a higher minimum wage while I'm struggling to pay the bills (much less deal with emergencies and other home expenses).

I advocate for 'my guy' every day here. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll vote for her (I've even made favorable posts for Hillary and supported ones where I agree with her). That's not going to stop me from questioning her or criticizing her when I think she's wrong. If you can't take my questions and criticisms then ignore me.

I'm 'like the right' for questioning this? Fuck that bullshit.

are better on that position. Stating some facts about an important issue is not acting like the right. Condescending claims of inevitability would be better supported with some specific positions on issues.

I know it is inconvenient to have them pointed out but I thank the OP for posting this so we can all be informed.

Who cares if she advocates a specific $ amount?

If you want start the Hillary bashing, just remember that Sanders has not faced an organized attack yet, and he has plenty of issue to pick over.

I care if she refuses to support a specific wage. That's not 'bashing' it's my opinion. It's a goddamn shame to be attacked for expressing it.

Sanders SUPPORTS a $15 minimum wage. Nothing to criticize him for on the subject of this post.

How does she support unions? Just by saying so? What about the specific issues they represent? Does she support all of them, as well?

"Hillary has long been a supporter of raising the minimum wage, equal pay, higher wages, and union bargained wages." That's not lip-service; it's a lifetime of fighting for workers.

If Hillary announces support for a $20 minimum wage, will you demand that others revise their speeches and up the ante to a specific amount? What's the magic number? Hillary has been on this topic for...hmmmm...decades? You do understand that a minimum wage (especially in a right to work state) is not a substitute for a good union contract. You also understand that the bigger issue is that women are paid equally; that international immigrants are citizens so they can be paid minimum wages of any kind and not abused; and that judges/courts fairly support challenges to unfair wages. A higher minimum raise is a simple talking point that all Democrats will support, but Hillary understands the real problems of workers. Putting all your effort into raising the minimum wages to some arbitrary number distracts from more important salary issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/07/hillary-clinton-sounds-populist-note-at-fast-food-workers-convention/

http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/04/hillary-clinton-promotes-womens-rights-in-front-of-thousands-of-methodist-women/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/hillary-clinton-minimum-wage_n_7075258.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/204772-group-touts-hillary-clintons-minimum-wage-efforts

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/

...the issue I'm responding to is 'her schmoozing and lip service with the 'Fight for $15 group without committing to their wage number.

So, you're basically arguing against the importance of a minimum wage. That's not a position I support. The minimum wage provides a base under union negotiations. Unions certainly contribute to raising wages, but their percentage of workers is unfortunately declining, even in their fraction of representation of the total U.S. workforce. I worked in a union for 30 years (UFCW 400 and 27) until I was discharged last year, so I understand the benefit and importance of unions.

As for the minimum wage being a 'talking point, I'll let that argument of yours speak for itself. It's certainly not the only issue in the workplace regarding wages, but it's an important one to workers like myself who are struggling to survive in a non-union job without a decent wage.

Constantly invoking the "bashing" meme to address a legitimate questioning of her positions displays a both a lack of confidence in her positions and a desire to stifle discussion.

and I find nit-picking on some of these details bashing (for any candidate). Is there any point? Do you find that Hillary would NOT support raising the minimum wage? Of course not.

That's just my view of any of these discussions. I found the term "lip-service" inaccurate to Hillary's support of the minimum wage, fair wages, bargained wages, and equal pay. She's been an advocate for workers for a long time.

I think the legitimate issue may be "Does the candidate support workers? How so?"

It's not a meme, it's an observation.

Just as I have done in every election since 1976. There has never been IMO a good GOP candidate during my voting lifetime, and the current crop is even worse than usual, so even a far too centrist (for my taste) Democratic candidate is vastly preferable to the alternative.

Of course there is a point to discussing these details. It's called vetting. If a candidate wins the Primary while skirting issues, do you see that as a good thing? I certainly do not, and I welcome any legitimate discussion offered on Sander's, Clinton's, O'Malley's, or any other pol's positions, that decides to toss their hat in the ring so that come time to check off the name on a ballot I have as much information as possible regarding each of their positions and stances so that I can make a choice based on those areas. To find out what they really think, in the GE, where my vote is limited to R vs D is not the way I was taught to utilize critical thinking.

To address directly your comments: Of course Clinton supports raising the minimum wage. It would be political suicide for her to oppose it. However, it would be nice to know what her thoughts are on the amount as that is pretty critical moving forward with any semblance of addressing the need for a living wage standard in this country. She could easily claim to support raising the wage and then oversee a hike to $9 and claim that she raised the wage without accomplishing anything meaningful. That may be a good political maneuver, but it's not the kind of leadership that will correct the path this country is on.

Guess that's why I see these types of discussions not as bashing, but as critical to making sure we have the best candidate availble to run in 2016, and that should that candidate win the election, we have a President that is clear in their convictions and goals so we have some basis to know what to expect from them.

Of union support.

Actually endorsing something one's fellow 1%ers (and sources of financial support) hate is another thing entirely.

O'Malley wants to seem way progressive in the primaries and then, if he got the nomination, he would take a hard right turn in the general election.

working for minimum wage and still not able to get out of poverty.

...one sure way to 'turn' after elected is to remain vague on the wage level you support.

It is easy to support eventually getting to $15 per hour minimum wage. Saying that we should adopt that minimum wage right now would be a radical proposal that I doubt Clinton or O'Malley would support.

All I could find was her speech mirroring some of the language the SCIU is using in their push for $15 an hour, but no actual mention of a dollar figure.

Thanks in advance!

Whoever wrote that headline pulled the $15 "endorsement" out of thin air. Nowhere in the article (or any other Google search provided) shows where she actually endorsed a specific number.

Now that's fine if you choose to read that into her reported statements to the group, but to state that as an absolute when even a cursory reading of the article provides little more than general allusions to standing with the union, and that is not what I would consider splitting hairs.

to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)

: to publicly say that you like or use (a product or service) in exchange for money

So where in the reporting of her phone call did she support or approve of the $15? She did not. So while it is correct to say that the verbiage reported implied an endorsement of the union, it's members, and the struggle they are engaged in, it is not true that she endorses the target goal. The closest anyone has come to indicating what her thoughts are is to say that she supports raising the minimum wage and will be stating the dollars and timeline when she rolls out her platform. That is not endorsing $15 an hour no matter how fine you want to split hairs.

Why isn't there a bill in the House and Senate at all times. The election is in 2016, there should be a bill already. Congress is sitting sleeping their terms away, where is a bill for $15 right now. Why do we have to wait until a new president is elected? I would bet if a bill got to Obama's desk it would be signed. It us about mealy mouthed Congressional members.

...jumping all around to excuse the political dithering on this from Hillary.

Pathetic. She needs to commit soon or she's just playing these folks.

It still has to come from Congress and now that Hillary has not said $15 even though she has endorsed the $15 wage she us being mealy mouth. We don't have congressional members who care about the working class to sponsor a bill, give it to congress who is failing. If we have to wait until a new president is elected, we have a president waiting on the bill getting passed right now.

which hasn't been rolled out yet.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/204537/hillary-clinton-progressive-democrats-back-fight-15-protests

She weasels in a way that I have no patience with

All the proposals are based upon phased-in numbers. By the way, I support it as soon as reasonable, well before 2020.

...it's elitist and cheap politics to appear before this group, claim she'll 'fight' with them and still keep the wage level she'll support to herself. That's not support, it's lip service.

With enough pressure, perhaps, we can get her to commit to the number advocated by the fast food workers and others in the coming days. Right now, she's just playing an infuriating politics with the livelihood of millions of workers.

she supports what they're fighting for, isn't she supporting $15 an hour?

I'm still laughing.

Those who wear Hillary Decoder Spex can read her like letters of fire though. Or something.

According to all reports linked to, and additional ones I found on search, she called in and told the assembly she supported them. I applaud her for the gesture, but it's not the same as saying I support the goal you have set. She used words that are non-committal should she include a figure less than $15 in her soon to be rolled out platform.

There was a picture of a podium with "Fight for $15" on it. The article made me think that she'd been there and said that. I could certainly be wrong. But then it's a confusing article.

Vox's headline was that she "hinted" at the $15, the Washington Post Headline stated that she "endorses fight for a $15 minimum wage", but in neither article did it quote her as saying that she supported the figure, only the struggle that the workers are engaged in.

...that's well known.

What was the point in standing before this group and still refusing to state the wage level she'd support? What's her thinking in refusing, so far, to actually state a number, as her Democratic opponents have - as this group and others have been demanding? Why doesn't she get on with it?

that's why the weak follow her and the 1% Pays her .

We are doing Seinfeld style posts here... right?


A listening tour that costs ~$2500.00 each to be heard?

A listening tour where at her last stop "Her speech will be the interview".

If she has so much experience, why is she out there gathering information this late in the game? Doesn't she know what her positions are?

Is this just a way to avoid answering questions?

Is this just a way to claim that her positions are what the people want?


Seriously, what is up with this? It sounds crazy to me.

has to .