the truth is as long as the Republicans retain any power in the House and Senate we are all pretty much fubared.

That is what we have been missing.

These kinds of generic statements may score a few points but the public but in reality they are just about the same ways continuing in hopes of a "kinder gentler" manner, and most of the public knows that.

The public is ready and receptive to a new idea, but it has to be well articulated and believable.

that if the Republicans have power in any other the other houses they will use it to screw us all regardless.

who say they are "disappointed" in President Obama because things haven't changed "fast enough."
As if he can do everything by himself and has no opposition.

Globalization, climate change, any number of other things mean that the situation where America was so rich that almost everyone could get ahead are unlikely to return in our lifetimes. The only alternative is to do more with less, share what we have, and support one another's efforts.

I don't need or want someone in a position of power promising they'll fight to bring back a mirage. All I ask is the tools to fight for myself -- and a government that's on my side instead of the side of the exploiters.

honest to dog, I'm as cynical and pessimistic as anyone. Born 1941, I've lived the whole rise and decline. Our democracy has been bloodied and kicked around and otherwise abused but we ourselves have done it. What we can't undo we can work around. All I'm saying is that it is not impossible to achieve a renaissance in America. It might take generations, of course. But I think we might be seeing the essential first step right now: Admitting that there is a problem. Income Inequality is in play across party lines and the Pope is going to come out strong on Income Inequality and Climate Change. Just the beginning. Long way to go. The deeper the revolution, the faster it'll happen. Like I said, I'm a real curmudgeon, but I haven't quite lost hope yet, try as I might.

My hope is for a more egalitarian and reciprocal world in which human beings can live according to genuinely human values rather than being subordinated to our machines and to the profit motive.

The special conditions of the twentieth century were based on two factors that are not going to come round again. One was the unlimited exploitation of fossil fuels that amounted to a "free lunch" -- it pumped vast amounts of wealth into the economy on an unsustainable basis. The other was the temporary dominance of the United States after World War II, when Europe and Japan had wasted themselves in war.

Those two factors allowed the American 1% to let the 99% have a few shiny things at no real cost to themselves. But both were running out by the 1970s, and the 1% knew it and started putting the infrastructure in place (Heritage Foundation, ALEC, religious right, etc.) that would enable them to grab off the lion's share as things got tight.

Ever since then, the 1% has increasingly tried to deny what is taking place in front of our eyes: Climate change, the malign effects of income inequality, the hollow sham of American global dominance. TPP and the other "trade" treaties are part of the final stage of that denial.

But it won't work and it can't work. And for the Hillary Clintons of the world to say in the nicest possible way that we can get it all back, that we can follow the example of Roosevelt and reconstruct the American middle class as it was fifty years ago, only prolongs the pain and makes it harder to get to the genuinely better world that should be our true objective.

If we want to get it back.

It's quite the quandary.

vested interest in keeping it as it is and the courts are sadly letting them largely get away with the rigged districting.

...about whether districts with a lot of illegals can have equal balancing in the districting numbers. It's sickening the efforts that the GOP goes to.

Hillary has now to prove her acting matches her speeches... and this is not an easy task!

24/7 French TV I> Télé reporter just told apparently all the pubic, wich came frim various states, was also picked up by campaign team.

Sorry, but I found your wording confusing. And it is quite significant how the foreign press reports on this kickoff speech. thank you.

She had a chance to fight for the American worker this week when Obama and his republican cohorts were trying to shove through this horrible trade deal which guarantees job losses to American workers. Not a word out of her on that subject, at least, none that I know of.

many of us, including Bernie Sanders, were hoping she would acknowledge the importance of the bill and express an opinion.

otoh, I can understand why she would not want to alienate either the president or the Democratic base. But if she had as much passion in her bones for the American people as she does for getting herself elected, she'd be a lot easier to admire.

Way.

A lot of generalities. Compare this speech to Bernie's.

Obama was going to reign in Wall Street and said he would push for a host of other progressive things. Then he got elected and we know what happened.

Bill Clinton disappointed me. Obama disappointed me more. I'm not sure I'm ready for a third betrayal. I am so for a female president but not so much that woman. Elizabeth Warren for sure, but she won't run.

Go Bernie!

....they disappointed you, how can you be sure Sanders won't too?

He speaks and acts from the heart and has always done so.

By their deeds shall ye know them -- and Sanders has a long
history of fighting for the 99%.

In fact, in 2010 he filibustered for 8 1/2 hours against an extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Was only a member from 2001-2008 Congress, In the amount of time Bernie has been I Congress I would have thought he could have solved some of these issues.

the job of President requires someone who thinks and acts with her head.

The Real Deal.is that he has proposed some excellent legislation but failed to get it passed.

it is very easy to be an ultra-liberal from Vermont because one knows none of those ideas will go anywhere and your constituency would support you regardless.

Bernie wouldn't be able to get elected in a middle-of-the-road state that easily with those same viewpoints. It is easy to be communist in Russia or a Jihadi in Afghanistan or a teabagger in Alabama.

It is far more difficult to set out policy that will appeal to a wide range of people with differing interests and aspirations.

People who criticize Hillary forget that New York is not an ultraliberal state and its pocketbook is tied to people who earn a living on wall street. Hillary had a much more difficult job as a senator than Bernie ever did in Vermont.

Sanders has sworn off BIG money, the others got in ON BIG money. I (like SO many others) fell for Obamas lies because he was perceived by me (like SO many others) as an "outsider" - when in reality we were being hoodwinked. "I'll STOP these illegal wars!".... and he could have - like instantly. And almost TWO terms later......

Of course - as has already been said here, as long as congress and the senate have only one word in their vocabulary (NO) - it's going to be really tough to institute any sweeping changes. THAT - under Bernie's influence - would be up to the American people.

campaign slogans are great; campaign promises are worthless. See Barack Obama.

Sorry, call me jaded. Not buying the platitudes.

"Did you know if there's a middle class you'll get richer?"

do people still get paid six figures for a speech?

Her problem with economic populism is that it's the exact opposite of what she has actually done in her own public and personal domains.

She cited President Barack Obama, and former Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Bill Clinton, her husband, and said they embraced the idea that "real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all."

There's only one name on this list that will be remembered for promoting shared prosperity and it's not Bill Clinton or Barack Obama...

I mean Obama should be charging Hillary with plagiarism.
I think she should stop associating herself with FDR. Hillary by far is no liberal.

*And if you notice her comments does not have the kind of rhetoric that would offend the corporate mafia or Goldman Sachs or other Wall St. supporters.

Wages then of Bernie is for increasing wages and you have declared Hillary isn't liberal then I will need to say Bernie isn't liberal either. See how it works.

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

like "If Banks are too be to fail than they are too big and they need to be broken up" or if Hillary would ever say " Wall Street should pay an investment tax"
or If she should say "We need to raise the income tax on millionaires and billionaires to the level it was before the Reagan era"


Now if she should ever start to use that kind of rhetoric (just to name a few examples) than I would say "Well just maybe she is a liberal, but she wont and reason is she will go just as far as her corporate and Wall St. sponsors will allow her to.She will try to feed liberals a few crumbs to make them think she is really fighting for them/us but she will never as the old saying goes "cut off the hand that's feeding her"

Things but she us a liberal. I would like to hear Bernie stand up on national security but I doubt this will happen.

but I believe Hillary is a Republican lite.A Corporatist.
I was fooled twice by Obama and I will not be fooled by another Corporatist Republican lite and Im am not bashing Hillary I am just stating my opinion.
It was the DLC (Bill Clinton) that started us on the road of nearly a total financial collapse and being cozy with Walls St and this is where the theory of " a candidate must be in the middle if they hope to win" and Hillary is to the right.

But I am impressed by your enthusiastic support for Hillary and as Bernie Sanders "we shall see when we debate the issues"

I am anxious to see the crowds Bernie will draw in Iowa next week and it could be the beginning of a very interesting primary/caucus season.

. . . are highly unlikely to share their prosperity with anyone except their shareholders and corporate officers.

That leaves Those Who Do Not Have, which is most of the rest of us, and half of nothing is still nothing, last I looked.

Which takes us to the federal tax code.

Now, maybe Mrs. Clinton is ready to bite a chainsaw in terms of the political guts it will take to get that done (i.e. seriously higher top marginal rates and strangled loopholes), should she win.

The fact that Joseph Stiglitz is reported to be one of her advisors is encouraging, if true. However, even if true, he's one among many and may or may not have her ear.

But there is nothing more likely to encourage the strongest imaginable blowback from Those Who Have than a proposed big shift in the tax code, and the fact that they have an already rabid political lumpenproletariat at their beck and call, thanks to Fox, doesn't bode well for that particular shift at the sausage mill.

This leaves us with the likely prospect of some careful nibbling around the most egregious excesses of the code, with God knows what (Medicare, AFDC, Medicaid, SS and much, much more) on the slab in exchange. Conventional wisdom will demand it, and I've yet to see anything from Mrs. Clinton that betrays wisdom of any but the most conventional flavor.

The 99 percent produced the economic prosperity and the 1 percent took the biggest share.

K and R.

Her solutions are just government incentives to businesses, which will only cause the burden of paying for basic worker benefits to be covered by the government(and ultimately the taxpayers). Unless she comes right out and says she will force businesses to do certain things, shes just offering more hand outs to big business.

Well her whole speech!

She has raised from those who do not want shared economic prosperity?

She has a lot of nerve to try and act the populist when her record falls squarely in the realm for the uber-rich.

That would be a start.

I just don't believe what her intentions are.

Anyone from any background willing to sell their soul to Goldman sacks and the fascist corps of America can cash in too.

Oh, I forgot: The 1% are making more money than ever.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101025377

So Hillary is going to give us a share of that? The same as her share? I don't think that's possible.

N/T