All Bernie supporters are actually ... REPUBLICANS!

Got it ... Thanks ...

(I seem to remember liking you once ... )

This one is about Hillary's strong record on economic issues.

Bernie Sanders also has a strong record on economic issues.

Figured prominently in your commentary, the very first clause: you have alluded in the past to Sanders supporters doing the bidding of the GOP ...

Once again, you go there ...

It's not even an "open secret", the GOP isn't even bothering to pretend they aren't doing this. There are Republican-backed organizations actively supporting faux-leftists attacks on Clinton, and even some respected progressive leaders like environmentalist Bill McKibben have fallen for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html

That Hillary supporters try to disparage supporters of other Democratic Party candidates by implying their objections to a Hillary candidacy are born of connivance between republicans and, supporters of Bernie Sanders, say ...

It is an abusive ad hominem, and we all know it ...

So, get off your high horse and recognize the fallacious associations you create ...

that Hillary is an "economic conservative" is making rounds in some circles despite her clear and extensive track record as an economic progressive?

saying Hillary supporters are actually GOP in disguise as there is no difference between her and the GOP? High horse, indeed.

might pull a muscle.

wrong place.

Saying something the op never mentions then finishing it off with an insult.

Got it ...

a sppech with all the stock bigoted phrases, is typical of Hillary supporters.

I believe this lie is at the heart of the GOP's attempt to get the left to attack Hillary ...

Bernie supporters 'attacking' Hillary at the behest of the GOP ....

Yeah ... It's right there ... Again ... Same poster, same insinuation

It's just not worth the keystrokes.

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And she profited mightily in the process.

If that doesn't make one an economic conservative, then nothing does.

Her "mighty profit" for serving on the WalMart board was $15,000 a year, and by most accounts, during her time there she worked to make WalMart more friendly to women and the environment.

And yet, due to GOP propaganda, some progressives want to dismiss her entire political career of fighting for working people because she was on the WalMart board in the late 80s. Those Republicans are crafty, you got to hand it too them. I never would have thought this kind of smear would ever gain traction.

WalMart wasn't the bohemoth it is today. It was a small-to-midsize retailer headquartered in Arkansas, so it makes a lot of sense that Hillary, as a successful and prominent Arkansas lawyer, would serve on its board.

And it is true that, like everyone else who serves on any corporate board, she got paid for it. Not a huge amount, of course, but yes, she did supplement her $100K salary by serving on boards. Which is very common practice among lawyers and businesspeople.

There's really nothing noteworthy about this other than the fact that she advocated for women's and environmental issues while at Wal-Mart. Which is great, but compared to her decades as a national leader for progressive causes across the board, it's not really a big part of her resume.

what she has done since entering politics, not advocating for women and the environment while at WalMart. As a politician her economic record is one of a dedicated progressive.

Yes, it would have been nice if Hillary had been able to single-handedly take control of Wal-Mart and change all of their corporate policies in the way she wanted. Wal-Mart would be a better company today if that had happened. I'm guessing that the other 15 members of the board, the company executives, the Walton family, etc. also had some say in things, though.

Hillary was at Walmart for personal power and profit.

She profited mightily from Walmart's war on workers, communities and small businesses.

She's got good first hand experience with the crony capitalism because as the First Lady of Arkansas she was a top corporate crony.

Bill and Hillary made a great team, using their power in government to serve America's most disgusting corporations.

A tradition they continued in the White House and the Senate and the State Department.

These people must be stopped.

She didn't profit "mightily", she profited by about $15,000 a year. And she owned Wal-Mart stock, along with millions of other people, including pretty much everyone with any kind of retirement plan.

Your whole post is vacuous nonsense. As I showed in the OP, if you look at her actual record, it is one of being a strong advocate for working people, and for economic justice and opportunity. Your posts, on the other hand, are just angry tirades. At worst, back in the 80s she didn't fight hard enough to reform Wal-Mart's corporate policies while serving on their board for $15K a year. On the other hand, we have decades of clear advocacy for economic progressivism.

The hatred is on your side, but the facts are not.

We're going in circles. You said earlier she only made a $15K salary from Walmart but then I pointed out she profited all these other ways, the ways of a corporate crony. And you just ignored it and repeated $15K.

The Clintons served Walmart, owned its stock, took its campaign cash, passed laws to help Walmart, shipped millions of US jobs to China, ran mom and pop shops out of business, destroying American communities.

It's the ultimate in corporate cronyism and neo-liberal economics.

People who magically become extremely wealthy while they are in "public service"... Cool trick.

The Clintons are the King and Queen of Corporate Cronytown.

They profited mightily while lives were crushed under their feet. Do you realize we're talking about real human beings' lives here?

Fuck Walmart.

She got paid $15K per year to sit on the Wal-Mart board in the 80s. And she bought some Wal-Mart stock. Looks like a real scandal! LOL.

Meanwhile, she has spent decades fighting for workers and the middle class, championing progressive economic causes across the board. The facts are the facts, and they are in the OP. You have nothing but empty hatred.

I already told you, earning $15K per year from Wal-Mart (plus some perks) means basically nothing to me.

Maybe if she didn't have any track record at all besides that. But of course, she does. She's been a leader fighting for progressive economic causes for two decades.

80s that Hillary served on their board is way beyond a stretch. It would be like trying to pin the 30,000 people who die from guns every year on Bernie's votes against the Brady Bill and in favor of civil immunity for the gun industry. And this is especially absurd in the case of Clinton, because when she was on the Wal-Mart board, she fought to make the company more progressive on issues like women, the environment, and America-First manufacturing policy. Exactly the opposite of what you'd like to blame on her.

When I look at the policies that Clinton has actually supported, it becomes clear that the "corporatist crony" stuff is just empty rhetoric. You are right that there are politicians that are trying to sell out working people to corporate and wealthy interests. That would be the Republicans. Hillary Clinton, as her record demonstrates, is not one of them.

Not trying to pin everything on her but Hillary and Bill were part of it.

Hillary gained money and power through her association with Walmart, one of America's most disgusting companies.

Walmart economics have destroyed America and left this country a shell of what it used to be.

Hillary was more than just complicit. A key crony in the corporate war on working class Americans.

Similarly, yes Bernie is responsible for his gun votes. Maybe you should start a separate thread on that. Oh wait there already is one that has been posted here multiple times: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026837230

And her vote for a shit corporate bankruptcy bill? Twist that into a progressive economic poaition.

She is not even close to being a progressive on economic issues.

The first time someone has actually brought up a relevant policy position in this entire thread.

There are actually three bankruptcy bills. The 99 one that she helped kill. The 2001 one that she voted for (along with all but 14 D's in the Senate at the time), and the 2005 one she was against but missed the vote because of Bill's surgery.

Yeah, the 2001 vote was not her best moment. Probably had partly to do with being a freshman senator and not wanting to alienate one of the main industries in her home state with one of her first votes. You know, like Bernie Sanders and the F-35 kind of thing.

But, yes, you are right, that was not a progressive vote. Obviously, it's just one small misstep in an otherwise extremely strong progressive economic record, and she did later come around to oppose a similar bill in 2005, but she was on the wrong side of that one.

If she got nothing liberal done at Walmart because she was being stonewalled, she would have resigned if she had any integrity.

Not only did she not resign, she stayed for SIX YEARS, giving the imprimatur of legitimacy to that organization, as First Lady of Arkansas for the SAME TIME PERIOD.

LOL

corporate board. Particularly a junior member. Obviously.

around the truth, maybe they did not want to give a truthful article.

It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $15,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices and a Made In USA policy. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

There are many line of attacks, one for sure is "she's not one of us" ahem 1%er, which the GOPers threw out there and of course it got picked up immediately.

and it worked. At the time it was a safe bet that the left could not win.

That does not mean that everyone who supported McGovern was a paid agitator.

I don't know if that same dynamic is at work. Times have changed and the Republican field is fractured.

Romney as a an opponent, and it worked. Now the GOP is doing the same with us and Hillary. They want Hillary and are running the same campaign as Obama did against Romney. They're projecting her as the nominee while hitting her with body blows.

Sadly, too many Democrats are eating up her "inevitability" status.

Nothing on earth is inevitable, and though she leads in most polls, even the ones I think are accurate, we are too far ahead of the actual primary for me to give it much credence. I won't vote in a primary until June. One way or another, I suspect it will be decided by that point.

lavish $30 million on her and Bill over the past 18 months for any reason?

Would Goldman Sachs pay $200,000 to hear her "economic liberal" message?

source of income for famous people. This ranges from people like Hillary to Jon Stewart to Paul Krugman. In fact, the same right-wingers who are trying to smear Clinton over her speeches tried to smear Krugman for similarly a decade or so ago. Apparently he gave a speech at some event that was sponsored by Enron.

It's true that Hillary earns more than those two. That's because she's a much bigger "get". Almost nobody in the world has hear broad level of knowledge and experience about world affairs.

[font size=3]

She is what she always is; a left of center Democrat, well within the main stream of her party. If that's not for a person than he or she is free to look elsewhere to find the candidate closer to their positions.

eom

That she took a photo with Lloyd Blankfein? Yes, she did. And if that's what this is about, then fair enough.

She's also been photographed with Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and pretty much every other prominent human being that's been alive at the same time as her.

But, policy-wise, what? Is there any indication that she doesn't support Dodd-Frank, for example? No, there isn't. In fact, she hired Gary Gensler to her campaign, former CFTC chair who has championed financial regulations and helped write Dodd-Frank.

eom

Being from NY means that obviously some of her supporters work on Wall Street, but just as obviously, not all people who work in banks are conservative. For example, George Soros, Tom Steyer, etc.

eom

us have been paying attention and noting hillary's positions for years. I've ever said she was an economic con. I have said she's a centrist with deep ties to Wall Street and corporate CEOs, and that that influence can clearly be seen in her record and rhetoric.

She's for raising the minimum wage? Big fucking deal. That's the bare minimum. The vast majority of elected dems do too. That does not make them all progressive on economic issues.

Tireless advocate for Social Security? She won't even consider raising the cap.

It's very telling that nobody has actually brought any facts to rebut her extensive record as a progressive. Just meaningless nonsense like "she's a centrist with deep ties to Wall Street".

falls on deaf or better described, closed ears on DU. Instead of discussion, the immediate response is to attack the messenger and the message. Truth is not considered.

Thanks for the post... good info to have.