As were a lot of people...this is far from her claiming she's like them.

Comparing Sanders to Ryan is crazy in my book.

But you have the floor if you want to try and convince me otherwise.

Interesting discussion strategy.

However, you still swing and miss. Why did the campaign choose FDR?

There are universal and timeless values like fairness and empathy but leaders need to fashion their solutions to the challenges of their times.

The Republicans were in disarray in 1932... The system was under attack from the left and the right... A lot of folks felt capitalism was in its death throes. Unemployment exceeded twenty five percent. FDR had pretty much a free hand to throw the kitchen sink at the Depression:

At some point, eras become different enough that comparisons just aren't that useful.

Bill might have used some of FDR's ideas, most Democrats do, but he did not use others. Since he did not have to deal with a Depression or World War it would be hard to make a comparison. FDR made mistakes. We all do and all politicians go.

I don't know how anyone could compare Hillary or any other candidate for the presidency who has not actually occupied the office. Campaigning for office is not the same thing as governing.

reasonable comparison to be made, frankly. Different times; different points of focus. That's my opinion. I think any comparisons are so flawed because of the situations each faced that there's not much point in making them.

By choosing the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park as the site to kick off her second White House run, Clinton is trying to tie herself to the legacy of a third U.S. president and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt, one of her role models.

“President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and they answered,” said Clinton, standing on a massive stage molded in the form of her blue and red campaign logo.
“It’s America’s basic bargain – if you do your part, you ought to be able to get ahead,” she continued. “When everybody does their part, America ought to be able to get ahead too.”

The daughter of a housemaid and granddaughter of a Scranton, Pa., millworker, Clinton hit on populist themes throughout her speech, saying she wants to fight for all Americans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/244923-watch-live-hillary-clintons-campaign-launch-in-new-york

...and incidental identification.

Many, many politicians wrap their politics in his legacy without bothering to reconcile the differences in eras - or even try and account for the shortcomings, contradictions, and faults of Roosevelt.


If she challenges herself to live up to the positive ideals of Roosevelt she espoused in her address, is that such a bad thing?

Every one does it...this doesn't even come close to her comparing herself to them.

I know he paid homage to Ronald Reagan, but I don't remember him ever paying homage to FDR.

was in shaping the Dem Party...it's really his legacy, and they all have to acknowledge it.

FDR was the greatest president of the 20th Century.

He saved a nation on the brink of revolution and successfully built a coalition around enacting his policies. Losing the New Deal coalition was the greatest tragedy in American political history. It made poverty a permanent fixture in the South.

Knitting together an assortment of people by paying lip service to their pet causes, while watering down populist rhetoric doesn't make one FDR.

Also, just to be clear, the FDR coalition broke up over the end of racial segregation in the South.

Please confirm that you are here, at a Democratic website, whining, pissing and moaning because Democrats stopped being the party of white supremacism.

I shouldn't have to defend FDR's legacy on a Democratic website.

to read your complaint that white supremacists left the Democratic party in the 1950's and 1960's.

Because that is what caused the break up of the FDR coalition.

In addition to your nasty sneering at "pet causes" which you have refused to specify. What "pet causes" are you deriding and what do you mean by "assortment of people?"

Come on now, speak up and let us know what your real agenda is.

I sneered at paying them lip service just to capture votes.

And there's a lot of reasons why the New Deal coalition fell apart, but I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks New Deal Democrats were white supremacists because that is a disturbing perspective of history I refuse to humor.

meant by "an assortment of people."

Are you denying that the civil rights movement played a key role in the breakup of the FDR coalition?

Or are you saying it wasn't worth it to break up the FDR coalition over civil rights for African-Americans?

It has to be one or the other. You are refusing to say which.

You seem very afraid to defend your beliefs.

that enacted the New Deal.

So, it's beyond absurd to discuss the break up of the New Deal coalition without discussing the Democratic party, which is where that coalition resided.

The Dixiecrat party won several southern states in 1948.

Voting Rights Act was part of the desegregation/civil rights movement.

You're splitting hairs.

The FDR coalition split up because of race.

Specifically, because the party stopped living in the 18th century on the subject of race and embraced the idea that black Americans were human beings.

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:55 PM - Edit history (2)

from a place at the Democratic table after Vice President Henry Wallace was replaced in '44 by Harry Truman. The newly reconstituted Progressive Party ran Wallace for the top spot four years later.

The FDR coalition split up because of race, yes, with the departure of the Strom Thurman Dixiecrats, but it also virtually expelled the Old Left activists who remained-- some of whom had been at one time affiliated with the Communist or Socialist parties. President Truman's Loyalty Oathers and Red Hunters made sure that the Democratic Party was rid of the remaining Leftists it could snoop out. By 1952, it was purified, "clean as a hound's tooth." Eisenhower made easy work of the 1952 election.

Do you remember: "Are you now, or have you ever been . . .?"

Don't get me wrong, I abhor the internment of Japanese Americans by FDR. But for some reason, I don't think Roosevelt Island was chosen on that basis.

For your point to be semi-cogent, Bush and Clinton would have had to round up every Muslim and Arab man, woman, and child--including US citizens-- living in the United States and imprisoning them.

Grabbing suspected terrorists in Yemen is not the same as that.

Not all bad things are like all really horrible things.

of it all or the connections to the imprisonment of suspects without trial.

unprecedented violation of the constitution.

Under your theory, killing Osama bin Laden was just as bad as killing Tamir Rice.

I am not debating FDR's violation of the Constitution vis-s vis Japanese internment. For someone who practices Zen (like myself) that would be idiotic. Know who you are talking too.

references to FDR in their campaign rhetoric?

Regardless of who makes it, comparing renditions of foreign terrorists to race-based concentration camps for American citizens is not an insightful one.

Or quit pretending they are stalwarts in defending it. A lie is a lie.

as now you can compare them.

I don't see it, especially since the centrist creation of the Clintons began the decimation of the New Deal from within the party.

You might even say he ... triangulated.

Sat idle as the lives of 1,000,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanada ?

or Destroying the crops production of Haitian Farmers ?

but sent help the situation in Bosnia

Guess Bill have too much on his plate when it come to the lives of black people

then Bill Clinton would have been attacked here on DU for warmongering, or being an imperialist meddling in other countries.

I like both presidents. Both did bad things; both did good things.

Rave on.

But at least I do it from an intellectual standpoint.

But only to the best of my ability.

I think they are depend on most people being too young to know all the things done by the real Roosevelts. We who know and remember are not fooled and resent their comparing any of today's politicians to FDR (1938-1946) is crazy.

Those who do this don't even come close to representing the Democratic Party of that time...

Hell, even the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) was a progressive and broke up the bank monopolies...who today would do that? - only Bernie & Elizabeth.

Thanks for your input.

What do you mean by that?

I agree 100%.

Contrived remakes, especially given the political issues of the day, bother me.

Seriously. It's not going to happen.

But I will enjoy the reaction to it not happening when the votes start getting counted, be sure of that. What a show it will be.

Struggles against economic injustice do not begin with expectations of winning the war in the first battle. It is better to fight for family and lose than die in vain doing nothing.

Let me know when you fight and die for Bernie, and economic injustice for that matter.

Lots of blow.

Very little in the way of go.

.. from 'Hilllary bought the election' to 'did anyone check the voting machines?'

The 'progressive' reaction to Hillary running for president is reminiscent of the September 2, 2004, Jon Stewart parody of Zell Miller's reaction to John Kerry - "How DARE the Democrats field a candidate! And during an election year! How DARE they!"

his presidency. Two things: Glass-Stegeal repeal and welfare reform.

The irony of it all.

and again history proves that the "99%" came from Occupy. She's got nothing.

Bill let them out, and did so happily.

Nuff said.

trouble.

Under her husband's Presidency. All that prosperity and job creation and no wars. It was awful.

2 stock market bubbles and the 2007/2008 crash. The Rubinomics and its deregulation being a contributory culprit.

for the great recession of 08.

One was for his reelection and heritage the other was for his future wealth. And if you like it or not we are now living in that future and yes it is also bushie's fault but his banksters could never have done it without the repeal of Glass-Stegeal. That is why FDR created that law.

Why didn't FDR take a strong stand on Women's Rights, Civil Rights, and LGBTQ Rights ???

Because it was the fucking 1930's !

In 2015, Gay Marriage is in the hands of the conservative Supreme Court... RIGHT NOW !!!

So let's not act like we are some sort of superior form of human beings. The majority of us are informed by the times we live in.

And NONE of those rights listed above... would be anywhere NEAR where they are now, if it weren't for FDR.

Not a one.

Different times folks.

Sec. Clinton might not be all that strong on protecting Social Security or creating jobs, but she's unlikely to put many people in internment camps or accept second-class citizenship for women.

It's the false economic premise being the premise though. I'm sure she didn't do it over interning Japanese Americans.

I don't think so. The Swiss bank hired the guy who helped push through bank deregulation and the guy who signed it into law.

See if you can spot some familiar names on this list:



They now work together at UBS -- which received uncounted billions in bailout money -- to specialize in some kind of "Weath Management."

PS: Forensic economist and former Fed regulator William K. Black wrote it reminds him of what happened during the Savings and Loans Crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. At the time, that was the greatest bank heist in history. Now we have another record setter, with more on the way.'

PPS: Go Wall Street. Trickle Down. Trickle Down.