The death penalty is not progressive.

Ricky was a victim of the system sacrificed in the name of "justice".

Barbaric.

--the prison-industrial complex, though n/t.

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Oops wrong Jim Webb.

If Black Lives Matter, then the death penalty has GOT to go!

crime bill and gave billions to the prison industrial complex. I cant fine anywhere that he has apologize for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

Information is hard to find.

Does this mean it's open season on spouses?

Is she willing to say that the 90s policy of ramping up the prison population is wrong? Is she now against the death penalty? 3 of 5 Dem candidates now are, after all.

Since you're bringing in Bill Clinton's 1992 run. Got it.

IMO she needs to come out against the DP, deregulation of telecoms, bank deregulation and all the "Tough on crime' and safety net cancellation stuff that she was defending as recently as 2008.

then, with no whining? After all, they are both pubic figures, not housewives, with jobs in the public sphere, too. All bets are off, then?

for any reason, or they aren't.

do here is tar a candidate with a spouse's brush.

So, if, say, a candidate's spouse was a really lousy money manager, and entered into boneheaded transactions that were incompetent in the extreme and caused a great deal of harm to institutions and individuals, then, by your example, I should be permitted to take that wasteful, foolish, incompetent money management card and "apply" it to the candidate, simply because they're legally wed...?

so long as the spouse is male and/or named Bill or Hillary. Otherwise, NO ... FAIR[ .../i]

--or you are more interested in personalities and fluff. What is it going to be?

---Lewinsky. I didn't in the 90s, and I don't now.

Hillary barely referred to her husband—and then only as “the messenger.” If he is the messenger, she may be the message. Those who keep asking “Why isn’t she running?” miss the point. Hillary Clinton is running. She and her husband have been a political team for more than twenty years. And now they are, despite protestations to the contrary, co-candidates for president of the United States. Asked at the L.A. luncheon if she wanted to be her husband’s vice president, Hillary brushed off the question. “I’m not interested in attending a lot of funerals around the world,” she cracked. She got a laugh, but when she continued it was with serious intent. “I want maneuverability . . . I want to get deeply involved in solving problems.” She later told me that she doesn’t see herself as a Cabinet officer but as an all-around adviser. And she doesn’t see what all the fuss is about. “No one gives George Bush a hard time when he gets advice from Jim Baker,” she’d complained to me earlier in the campaign.

No one would have ever heard of Hillary without the fame of close family member(s).

had she not been constrained by her marriage and her husband's ambitions.

I remember it was an issue when Bill Clinton was President. Some of the bureaucracy had to be told that HRC had access to the process of governing. This was authorized by POTUS. This was a time when "Co-President" was a term that got floated around. If that partnership no longer exists, if President Bill Clinton won't be an active member of President Hillary Clinton's inner circle, then that's news.

Conversely, if any of Senator Sanders family will be part of his inner circle of advisers/de facto administrators, then that's news.

The point being that HRC was part of Bill Clinton's administration, and President Bill Clinton presumably won't be just baking cookies as part of HRC's administration. So his politics are as relevant as anyone else's who's attached to HRC, or who will be serving her administration.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/hillary-clinton-first-lady-presidency

Hillary barely referred to her husband—and then only as “the messenger.” If he is the messenger, she may be the message. Those who keep asking “Why isn’t she running?” miss the point. Hillary Clinton is running. She and her husband have been a political team for more than twenty years. And now they are, despite protestations to the contrary, co-candidates for president of the United States. Asked at the L.A. luncheon if she wanted to be her husband’s vice president, Hillary brushed off the question. “I’m not interested in attending a lot of funerals around the world,” she cracked. She got a laugh, but when she continued it was with serious intent. “I want maneuverability . . . I want to get deeply involved in solving problems.” She later told me that she doesn’t see herself as a Cabinet officer but as an all-around adviser. And she doesn’t see what all the fuss is about. “No one gives George Bush a hard time when he gets advice from Jim Baker,” she’d complained to me earlier in the campaign.

Chief of staff / office manager.

So...spouses are fair game then...

Though "fair game" is not how I choose to put it. "A valid target for criticism" or something along those lines would suit me better. But if a position of a campaign, or group of posters, was that Bill Clinton (the spouse) was "fair game", you'd be justified in saying "ok, then Sanders Chief of Staff is fair game".

Same standard we applied to Rahm Emmanuel should apply to Sanders Chief of Staff. Any cutting of deals is a fair topic. Meeting that are held should be subject to scrutiny. Visitor logs should be disclosed.

Scrutiny of any political activity is healthy for the system.

I'm not seeing her listed as Chief of Staff, but I do see it suggested she's always been something of an adviser. Office Manager is kind of "meh" in comparison to being the political partner of POTUS.

So I'm not seeing this as either she is, or isn't, the equivalent of a Clinton in this comparison and discussion. To the extent she's part of the Sanders team, she's a valid target for scrutiny.

Same applies to President Clinton.

They're either in or they're out...apparently IN is OK with HRC's family, so it's IN for everyone else as well,then.

Goose, gander and all that.

Knock yourself out.

of those tactics. I only bring it up to make a point... one I think you may have missed.

eom

If she says that she is against it now, she stands a chance of alienating Bill's old friends and many others who voted for him in 1992.

This issue is just too important.

How many are pro/anti death penalty.

The racial disparities in application are all too blatant

Wonder why?

I see one upthread who is already trying to distract from the topic. I predict they'll post about guns next.

Quite frankly I'm surprised that this issue hasn't come up before.

Thank you for your op.

At least they didn't say "race nagging".

Wonder if their families would agree.

willing to sacrifice the lives of other black people for my candidate ... who by your own post, opposes the death penalty.

And the OP was about how a clear majority of Dem candidates oppose the death penalty.

comparing policy positions of the candidates.

Please post a link. BTW, 3 of 5 Dem candidates ARE against the death penalty.

Fox News love you all.

If not do you have a problem with her position?

--she is also thinking beyond Bill.

IMO is how many of the issues today involve undoing what was done in the '90's

In 1992, we hoped it would stop, or a least slow down. Instead it accelerated.

On Tue Aug 25, 2015, 05:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Another thread indicating that Hillary can't think beyond her husband.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=544730

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

It is disruptive to accuse people of Fox News every time somebody criticizes the candidate on an issue.

There is no purpose to that other than to discourage conversation about issues during the primary season.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 25, 2015, 05:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's also disruptive to alert on the tiniest little thing.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Buck up, little campers.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I'm no fan of Hillary, this comment certainly doesn't rise to the level of being rude or disruptive.

please, have a thicker skin, it is election season after all (which seems to be never ending now) and stop with the completely useless alerts.

carry on.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

running? I'm surprise at Joy Reid calling Joe biden a LIberal. He and Hillary are two peas in a pod. They have quite the same voting record siding with bush. Including the Iraq war vote.
Joe Biden wrote the crime bill signed into law by Clinton.
I haven't seen where good oh Joe has apologize for filling the prisons of black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

--and disproportionally executing them. As long as you think those things are OK, you are free to concentrate on important things like how many rural white voters a candidate represents.

I appreciate your position regarding the death penalty. I appreciate your position regarding incarceration rates. Let's try not to conflate the two. One does not necessarily drive the other. We executed many people before the explosion in the prison population. Conversely, we can jail millions and execute none of them. They are both artifacts of our dysfunctional legal system, but they're different issues. Solving one will not necessarily solve the other.

--in the last 6 months or so, and I think it sank like a rock. IMO it belongs in the same shitcan as the email garbage. The death penalty issue is substantive, regardless of whether the the deaths happened 20 years ago or are happening right now.

While only 30% of those killed by police are black. It turns out the police are less racist than the "justice" system.

I know I could look it up, but thought you might already have it.

Death row stats
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Police killing stats
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/study-more-whites-killed-by-police-than-blacks