note I use the term progressives (I myself consider myself 70s liberal not progressive which is a word I am not quite sure
the connotation sometimes).

IF Progressive Robert Reich, who has arguments sometimes on wedge issues, thinks Hillary should be President
(like I myself do), then that should be the last word to all progressives.

Yes, I also agree here with Mr. Reich, be safe, be well, be strong President to be Hillary45.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

of the word "hero." Robert Reich is an academic who has been tapped for public service over the years. For all of the "progressive" talk he engages in now, I still have quite vivid memories of seeing him on innumerable talk shows in the 1990s hardselling NAFTA. I have yet to hear him take ownership of that portion of his career or offer the American worker some inkling that the thinking that went into NAFTA and all the other AFTAs which were destructive and led to some of the problems we have now.

One of my pet peeves is how casually the word "hero" is applied to people, especially those who have just name recognition going for them and not much else than the fact that they were doing the job they were hired to do.

I agree with what you said. Reich is smart and often on the right side of issues but we should not forget how sometimes he's been wrong. Oh so very wrong.

Julie

I was just a little surprised by how sure he was that Hillary Clinton will run.

his often harsh criticisms of Pres. Obama's progressive credentials. Not that it matters, but this places his future critiques in their proper perspective for me.

My observation was merely that Reich has been, at times, very critical of the President's progressive bonafides, or perceived lack thereof. I just find it interesting that he would advocate for someone as moderate as Hillary. I know he's an old Clinton family ally, but his work is often presented here as proof that the current Democratic president isn't sufficiently progressive.

he was also harsh on Bill and left the administration after NAFTA among other issues of policy difference. I think it's very interesting (and telling) that many DUers and other liberal commentators and critics who have been and still are critical of Obama now support Hillary. Their positions on issues are not that different. She is arguably more hawkish and is from the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. While I like Hillary and will support her when/if she's the nominee, I'm just taken aback by the hypocrisy of us on the political left.

someone better, and she don't change her views on Foreign Policy, I'm not voting for her. I hope someone more Liberal challenge her again. If someoneelse pop up that is more Liberal challenge her, I don't think it will be a cinch for her just like with Obama. We got three years to go and a lot can happen in current events. Right now, this is more a celebrity contest than about issues. And I suspect her warmongering has more to do with Israel and the Jewish vote.

Since 2007 I have thought that the myth that Obama is more progressive than the Clintons is just that, a myth. One vote that should have clued in his supporters was his vote on FISA a month after he clenched the nomination. Compare his and her vote on this issue.

In 2004 during an interview with Tim Russert, he admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time. By 2008 he had reverted to his 2002 position. He's a politician, they are all alike in one respect, they'll say whatever they need to say to get elected.

He was butt-covering for the Democratic Party's complicity in the invasion of Iraq.

He explained his statement:"The only time when I said I'm not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination," he said.

He has otherwise been consistent all along. At approximately 1:18 in this video he was asked straightup in 2004 as Senator-Elect if would have voted against the IWR:

Q: "If you had been a member of the Senate, you would have voted against the resolution?"

A: "Yes."

You must think ignoring the facts pointed out to you gives you license to continue disseminating a faulty narrative. Not on my watch.

Something wrong with the way it was downloaded. The response is that Obama said what was convenient for him to say at the time. Again, a politician's response.

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

He boldly made the right call on Iraq and you can't take that away from him, try as you might to somehow mitigate you-know-who's lousy IWR vote, a vote that falls right in line with her (and her husband's) hawkish stance on Syria. Try sweeping that under the rug.

up endorsing Obama!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=311720

I only brought it up because I thought it was interesting that he stated he was so confident that she would run.

That'll be news to many people. I see him in the same range on the scale as the Clintons: Left of center.

I, for one, never thought he was a progressive, certainly not as progressive as, say, Robert Reich. I saw him for what he was in 2008: an electable moderate in the Midwestern tradition of centrist Democrats. So far there have been few surprises. Are there some things I don't like? Sure, but the passage of health care reform has been the greatest Democratic policy success since LBJ.

I am not sure about her health issues, but barring a real electable progressive challenger, she's certainly already the frontrunner is she is willing and able.

That has been my main beef since 2007. This absurd idea, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Obama was far more progressive than Hillary. I called B.S. on that one six years ago. If people wanted to vote for him in the primaries for other reasons, fine as that was their prerogative, but the idea that he was some kind of LW hero and she was to his right was just laughable. It was so evident that they were both mostly on the same page, that I'm surprised at the disappointment of many of his supporters. His vote on FISA, a month after he clenched the nomination, should have clued them in.

icon. That was their fault. There was nothing in his voting record, neither in the IL state senate nor the U.S. Senate, that could've remotely been liberal. Even during the debates, there was not that much difference between the two.

My point is that I find it strange that the most liberal purists on DU don't seem to hold the Clintons to the same liberal standards as they do Barack Obama. I find it a bit hypocritical.

That's why some of them chose Obama over Hillary. They expected that Obama was a liberal and are now disappointed to find out that he's just as centrist as the person they rejected in the primaries.

That was Axelrod's strategy. He had a candidate who was mostly unknown on the national stage. How to sell him? Use his talents as an orator and make give feel good speeches without too many details. Hope and change, etc. Change to what was the question. Now we know.

Let's be honest Bea: Hillary never had any policy accomplishments other than latching on and benefitting from what her husband did. You speak of lofty speeches, but again, the same could be said of Bill Clinton, hell, Ronald Reagan, for that matter. That's what politicians do and Obama's no different.

On these points, we agree, so let's keep our good relationship going:

1. Hillary Clinton is not liberal. Though she's progressive, she's no liberal; she's a pragmatist and represents the center-left.

2. See above regarding Bill Clinton.

3. See above regarding Barack Obama.

4. Many on the political left--including myself-- wanted these politicians to be liberals and are upset because they are not.

5. If Hillary Clinton runs for the presidency, and she is the Democratic Party nominee, I will enthusiastically support her in the general election!!

so I don't really agree with your assessment of her having no policy accomplishments of her own.

I thought that we already discussed point one. Who is saying that Hillary is a liberal? I don't recall her ever claiming to be one during the 2008 campaign. What you saw is what you got. The point about Obama is that some of his supporters thought that he was one and are now upset because he turned out to be a centrist.

a contradiction.

Anyway, we agree, but just saying the same thing a bit differently.

And now I've got to go to bed because I've had too much red wine and its nearly 1:30 in the morning.

7:30 comes awfully fast.

...at least not how the purists want them to be.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

the President this.. the President that.

Does he honestly think Hillary's more to his satisfaction?

He had been around the block long enough to know how campaigns are run. I was out there in PA and people were not pleased about what Obama said in San Francisco. In PA Obama was outspending Hillary close to 3 to 1 and she still won the state by a comfortable margin.

This meme that Obama's campaign was pure as snow and the Clinton campaign was mean is just nothing but B.S. The truth is that once the Democratic leadership decided that Obama was their guy they threw Hillary under the bus; Teddy, Edwards, Richardson, Pelosi, Dean, etc. Now some of them are tripping over themselves saying that Hillary is the person they want in 2016. Nancy even stated that she is "praying" that Hillary runs. Bunch of hypocrites............

Nothing against Reich, but I'm not sure I'd be able to support HRC if she were the nominee.

I really like Reich...but he's wrong about Clinton and her third-way economics...the same economics he criticizes daily from Republicans.

I'm an economic and social policy liberal (which I was under the impression Reich also was), it's only aligned with those views that I happen to be a Democrat. I have no party loyalty if they're going to nominate people who are not liberal on fiscal policy. If there were the formation of a (Social-Democratic) Labor party in the US...I wouldn't be Democrat.

(and pedophilia, mind you, not just bad boys boinking hookers here, and drug running) are comparable to the stupidity of the Benghazi witch hunt and that the repuglicans have something to do with this.

That is not true.

This one is a real scandal and that is why things have gone awful interesting in an awful short time since that was reported in the press.

Tony Blair is even in on the 'don't look over there, look over here' game.

Just kidding. Reich is adding his voice to that of many other people who are speculating what she'll do. I think that Hillary is a pragmatist and will assess after the midterms the political situation of the nation. She will also think about her family and her health. She will not run if she doesn't think that she would be physically and mentally strong enough to tackle the job for a foreseeable 8 years.

Hillary is not impulsive like Bill, she'll talk to her family and a handful of her intimates and assess all the pros and cons before she announces her decision. Bill has already said when asked that he would like for her to stay away from politics for a year and do other things.

But the State scandal forced some hands to say that out loud because they are depending on her supporters to make a lot of noise against the investigation or what the investigation finds out.

there are no coincidences but just one, and it's in each dictionary.

Gee...........

but that, apparently, is okay and free speechie and feets to fires, and all that.

We have to work on the 2014 mid-term elections first.
We have to get back control of the House of Representatives first.
We have to turn this country to the left first.

Then, and only then, can we, or more correctly, should we, start discussing the 2016 race.

Now, don't tell anyone this, because I'm sure the NSA already knows it, but President Obama is the rider of the sparkle pony.
I think they have already released the documents admitting that.
He is the one with the reins in his hands.
And while he tries to turn the sparkle pony to the left, the Republicans keep holding out sugar on the right.
The sparkle pony can't resist sugar, we all know that.
So, it's a hard job trying to get that sparkle pony to turn to the left.

But, once we get back control of the House, we can take the sugar out of the hands of the Republicans, and that sparkle pony will turn more to the left than anyone ever expected.
And all of that will happen long before the 2016 Presidential election.

By then we will be able to get another Socialist elected to the White House.
But, probably not another Muslin from Kenya.
Yet, keep this to yourself for now.

I agree and 2014 is not going to be a picnic. My feeling is that we are not going to have a good year. I think we won't retake the House (though it is possible we pick up a few, either way it will stay very close) and the Senate I think we will lose a few. Thankfully we have over a year to go. The constant scandal, scandal, scandal (whether they are true or not, remember there are a lot of low information voters) is going to hurt us.

then as FLOTUS, then a senator, then presidential candidate and senator, then as SOS for 4 years. I don't know how many years that is total, but it's well over 30 (I know Bill lost the governor's race and then was reelected the next time around). It maybe the first time since the mid-70s that both of them actually could spend a significant amount of time together without some pressing issue taking place. I wouldn't begrudge her for hanging up her coat and taking time for herself and her family. Stress isn't good for anyone (look at what it did to Bill, thankfully he looks better than ever) and can shorten your lifespan. I've heard she is hoping for grandchildren soon. I'm sure it will happen and that could affect her decision as well.

I wonder what he thinks he knows that others don't.

Rah-rahing by Clinton advocates notwithstanding.

Hillary is not a liberal either so we'd get another term of centrist rule.

Been there, done that.
They are not much better than repukes.
Neither is our current president.

No more support for corporatists and warmongers.

i predict Hillary by +15

I really hope Hillary doesn't run. As much as I supported Big Bad Bill at the time, I don't think it's a good ideal to have him roaming the halls of the WH. I think Chris Christie will run for the GOP unless the baggers prevail.

Someone else said we need to concentrate on the mid-terms and I totally agree. I have major election fatigue and need some time off. It's just too exhausting.

And even I have no doubt she'll run in 2016.