Hillary Clinton Aides Shed Light on Bill’s Role in Her Campaign
http://time.com/3920153/bill-clinton-hillary-campaign-adviser/

just like we shouldn't treat one or two polls where Sanders does well as gospel, neither should we treat one or two polls where Hillary does well as gospel. Time will tell if those polls are outliers or accurate. Sanders clearly had the lead before the debate (he was leading in the last 10 or so polls) now one poll has her with a statistically significant lead, one has her with a lead which isn't statistically significant, and one has Sanders in the lead.

Hillary will use the bully pulpit to push our progressive ideals and get things done.

Self-identity labels are worthless in politics. Issue-assessment classification is where it is at in terms of political science and identifying where people are on the political spectrum.

Those people, no matter what they think they are, are no more likely to be progressive than I am of being a communist or Sandy Koufax. Your positions, not your self-identity, make you progressive.

Get over yourself.

There is nothing in her resume to suggest that she can lead successfully. Follow others leads, yes. Other support to others, yes. But be a leader, nope.

Here's just some of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments:

As Secretary of State-

Secretary Clinton helped restore America’s leadership and standing in the world after George W. Bush made the world hate us. In order to strengthen alliances, she traveled more than any other Secretary of State in history, traveling nearly a million miles for hundreds of meetings with foreign leaders in 112 countries.

Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean recently told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”

Secretary Clinton played an integral role in the New START Treaty with Russia. Secretary Clinton played an active role in reaching a missile reduction agreement with Russia, working to push it through the Senate and securing more than the necessary two-thirds majority. She entered the treaty into force in Munich with her Russian counterpart. As a result of the treaty’s passage, there will be fewer nuclear missile launchers. Simply put, the world is safer.

Secretary Clinton supported the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice. As NBC News reported, “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended an air strike with no forces on the ground. CIA Director Panetta supported a raid by Special Forces and so did Secretary of State Clinton.”

Secretary Clinton helped avert war in Gaza by negotiating a ceasefire between Israelis and Palestinians. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton met with the regional leaders of Israel, Palestine, and Egypt to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. In a critical moment, Politico noted “Hillary Clinton Scores Gaza Cease Fire Success,” when hope for an end to the violence in Gaza seemed dead, she made the case for returning calm to the region and ending the rocket attacks.

Secretary Clinton played a role in bringing one war to an end and planning for the end of another. Working closely with Department of Defense colleagues and as part of the President’s national security team, Secretary Clinton played a role in the end of war in Iraq and in beginning a transition in Afghanistan, with all NATO allies having agreed to stand-up a post withdrawal support plan. As President Obama told 60 Minutes, it was “all a consequence of the great work that Hillary did and her team did and the State Department did in conjunction with our national security team.”

Secretary Clinton was critical in America’s “pivot to Asia” strategy. As Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute wrote in Foreign Policy, “The ‘pivot’ to East Asia will probably be Obama’s most lasting strategic achievement… [but] it is Clinton’s too. She laid the groundwork, built the relationships, and developed the complex architecture of the new strategy — and she turned up at that pivotal moment in Vietnam in July 2010 to declare the U.S. commitment to the region.” Secretary Clinton earned praise for her work in opening up Burma, a place that had not been visited by a Secretary of State in 50 years.

As Senator-

Hillary Clinton worked in the Senate to strengthen the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, introducing multiple bills allowing states to expand the program that she helped create as First Lady. The program, created in 1997, increased health coverage for children in low income and working families.


Hillary Clinton was a powerful advocate for women in the Senate and was one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. As Senator she was an outspoken defender of a woman’s right to choose and worked to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

As First Lady-

Besides championing CHIP, giving health coverage to millions of children, she was a groundbreaking First Lady in terms of activism for women, as evidenced by this amazing call for women's rights, declaring "Women's Rights ARE Human Rights and Human Rights ARE Women's Rights" in 1995 in Beijing.

It's interesting. Hillary supporters can't seem to have discussions about their candidate. They can only cut and paste from her website and other pro-Hillary pieces. Same as in 2007 and like in 2007 much of this stuff is exaggerated or not true.

Hillary played a supporting role in her entire career in DC. She has no experience in successfully leading on much of anything. Her only attempt was Hillarycare in the 1990s and it was a massive failure based largely on her inability to lead or get along with others and her paranoid secrecy. In the Senate, she was a backbencher who didn't lead on a major piece of legislation. At State, she carried out Obama's directives in a support role. She just isn't cut out for a leadership role.

She is leading all the time. For example, she recently proposed executive actions that can be done to reduce gun violence, and now the Obama administration is looking into it. http://time.com/4068040/barack-obama-gun-control-executive-actions/

And O'Malley proposed that stuff earlier.

I am talking about taking the lead on something and getting it done. She has no record of doing that. No amount of cutting and pasting puff pieces from Hillary's team that exaggerates her role in these events.

It gives medical coverage to 8 million children.

Hillary supporters just don't understand the difference between a competent mid-level manager and a successful leader. Hillary didn't get SCHIP enacted - Kennedy and Hatch did. She did help raise support for it and play a minor role in it getting implemented. But, she at no point was the leader on this piece of legislation.

It is an amazing accomplishment for Kennedy and Hatch though. Kudos to them for leading on this.

Kennedy's named may have been listed, but he was very clear about giving credit to Hillary:

Keep repeating your PR pieces from Hillary. No one else agrees with your nonsense.

Askew, did you get that bullshit from the same Republican trolls who call talk shows and say nobody knows anything about President Obama?

This poll is good news.

I get that she realizes now that was a losing proposition for her but having "evolved" over the span of a month is not credible.

she is no progressive.she is centrist.the poll is terrable.

but i see you support

TPP
Keystone
cutting social safety net
letting wall street make off like bandits
more war In Middle east
private prisons for profit
increased national security state
militizan of police

And wave at your friends ...

Barack Obama being the most liberal president in history.

I mean that's the kind of insane statement that makes me wonder how out of touch with reality Hillary Clinton supporters are.

She's not even to the left of Jimmy Carter and nobody is going to accuse Carter of being anything but a moderate Democrat in his day.

LBJ, JFK and FDR were all much further to the right than BHO.

Sincerely? Seriously?!

OMFG!

Barack Obama has not put Arabs across the country into concentration camps, like FDR did with the Japanese Americans.

Barack Obama has not escalated US involvement in civil wars by moving ground troops into the region, like JFK did with Vietnam.

Barack Obama has not escalated troop levels in the middle east to hundreds of thousands, like LBJ did with Vietnam.

That you ignore the facts of history is most telling.

No he did not do those, but he did do these:

Under Obama, American deaths in Afghanistan soar
Monthly U.S. death rate is four times higher under Obama than Bush

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11703

Obama's Drone War Death Count Surpasses Spanish Inquistion

http://theantimedia.org/drone-war-death-count-surpasses-spanish-inquisition/

So let's add those to the following -

1) Insurance mandated ACA HeritageCare
2) TPP
3) More whistle blowers prosecuted in any administration
4) Economic recovery for the 1% greater than the 99% put together.
5) Continues privatization of education through Arne Duncan

I could go on and on but you will ignore it because it isn't what you want to see or more bluntly you agree with it as a neoliberal New Dem yourself.

Jim Crow lived well under FDR and segregation thrived in the military.

That you show an extremist slant on the progressive accomplishments of the most liberal president in US history is quite telling, though.

An extremist slant? Ah yes, the standard reply of the pragmatic woodchucks in the neoliberal New Dem stronghold.

What, it only took how many deaths before Obama finally earned that Peace Prize with the Iran Deal in his last year in office?

Incredibly extremist.

I was raised in a moderate Republican household by bi-racial parents, and I am now considered an extremist fringe leftist!?

You really do make me laugh!

Anybody who denies Hillary Clinton is liberal is as extreme to the left as those on the right who deny Jeb! Bush is a conservative are extremist to the right.

other than a moderate.

Obama identified himself as a Reagan moderate Republican.

You are wilfully ignoring what they state to be true about themselves in order to delude yourself into believing they are the most liberal evah!

Clinton is a liberal.

To deny that is an extremist position on the left just as denying that Jeb! Bush is a conservative is an extremist right position.

like a child until you are blue in the face, it does not change reality.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal. This is an undeniable fact to all but far extremist leftists.

Look at your 'thesis' OP for actual facts!

And see how much you get laughed at.

thinks Obama is a Muslim Communist from Kenya.

It still doesn't change the facts that she is not. Perception is not reality contrary to the relativism of the Third Way.

both are corporist dems.Clinton is to right of Obama.

VERY extremist. That is as far to the left as the baggers who claim Bush is liberal are extremist to the right.

Disturbing, discoraging, and very, very sad.

Bernie is a progressive...Hillary is a corporate puppet.

Life's good!

You don't get to define progressive alone.

Not progressive enough for me is not the same as not progressive enough for the Democrats as a whole.

The homophobia on full display in this subthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2948862

Just quit it.

No answer to the question? Just change to something else. How progressive of you.

The Dem party is a big tent and liberals, progressives, and moderates are all welcome. We can all find common ground to move America forward. No one group has a monopoly on solutions and ideas.

It's one poll in New Hampshire in a primary election campaign. Perhaps what it represents is that your definition of "liberal" and "progressive" need some adjustment. That's my guess. As far as I know, there's no single, standard definition of either term and no authority competent to decide who is or is not "liberal" or "progressive." Both terms are very flexible in nature, and usually refer to people's self-identification more than anything else.

Did you get the memo correcting what you were stating earlier today about the dem debates?

The last debate was great. Don't want you to miss the next one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704870

that's clear as day now no matter what they call themselves.

day of liberals and progressives are over In democratic party.It is a center right party since Clinton is gaining ground.

Liberals and progressives are "centrist" in your book, which really put you at the extreme left end of the political spectrum.

He didn't say they liberals and progressives were centrists. He said they're not as liberal or progressive as they think they are.

Self-identity labels are largely useless in politics. Most people haven't got fuck-all idea what they are or where they fall on the spectrum in any precise sense.

As you now have.

TPP
Keystone
trade deals
decline of unions and working class
cutting of social safety net
for profit prisons
militzan of police
more war In middle east
letting corporations,wall street,and banks make off like bandits
the national security state

It's good now that i know many dems are fine if my SSI,food stamps,and Medicaid is cut as long as top 1% is protected and there is money for war in middle east.

So your silly list has no bearing on the matter.

You've demonstrated extremism. Thanks for sharing.

their candidate lost.

It will not be over until around midnight 9 February 2016.

We will see both sides claiming its over until the votes are counted.

If I had a Delorean and some plutonium, I would gladly jump past the whole frightful mess.

and this story is continued here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=705526 through to post 51.

your attempt to be representative of the wounded lefties, falling on your swords in the face of failing to make the entire Democratic party one borg like mentality, isn't accomplishing anything.

I greatly doubt this is a true reflection of the will of the electorate ....

We have months to go ... We are barely getting started ...

Go Bernie!

he has lost ground and she has gained ground.

Up this month, down the next ... What do you expect us to do? .. Whither and die? ... Shrivel like a month old flower?

Fuck THAT ... And FUCK this Chicken Little attitude ...

Whiners = ignore

The debate was disaster for Bernie.it seemed to completly end his insurgent campagin.

He raised millions in the days after. He has raised millions of supporters across social media. His numbers have held in some places and dip only slightly in others.

Why are you giving up before this has only begun? It was the first damned debate.

Lost ground totally In NH

Lost ground totally nationwide even in polls that included Biden

the remaing 3 debates may not be seen by too many.and first debate was total disaster for Bernie.

we could use some good news but it keeps getting worse and worse.

This one say he is down.

And this one says he is holding his lead.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/257307-poll-sanders-maintains-post-debate-lead-in-new-hampshire

So which is the more accurate?

That's what I mean when I say that polling even this far out after one debate is virtually useless. Hell even Clinton's campaign manager is quoted as not giving a shit about polling.

This far out in 2007, Clinton led Obama and we saw how that turned out.

So it is your choice, of course, if you want to declare it is over. But I am still out there working hard to get this man elected.

Is usually one of most reliable polls.

got it wrong in the last UK elections.

Reflect on that in light of what I have already said.

The problem is there is a ceiling on his potential support.

And there are Bernie supporters throwing in the towel.

Good thing most of the Bernie supporters I know aren't such wimps.

I've got no immediate skin in the game, my primary comes later, so a lot of it is "decided" by then. So I'm not picking anyone at this point.

But the shift in narrative from the vocal side is pretty much comical when you look at it from the days before the debate - just a week ago! - to how it's shifted since then to where we are now. It'd be sad if not so amusing.

Put your hair out man, there's still a long-ass campaign to go.

it's tons of them.

Look man. Sanders isn't a hare. He campaigns "slow and steady," building his groundwork, making everything solid, and then taking the next step. We've got a good long while of that until New Hampshire votes. And I'll be frank. I'm not expecting landslides. It's going to be close, and we're going to end up yanking our clumps of hair before June.

Take a deep breath, and focus on what sanders is doing. Seriously. Advance your guy, don't focus on what the hare is doing.

I don't get why people are buying into the notion that early polling is indicative of results. It's ridiculous when Clinton supporters make it the center of their support, and it's just as silly when my fellow Sanders supporters do whatever the hell this is.

Plus when was NH indicative of anything? Have they ever been correct?

Hillary's getting a huge wave of good news for her based off the pundit's spinning of the debate. It isn't going to last. There are about 30 FOIA lawsuits left to settle plus an FBI investigation. And she hasn't had to sit through any tough interviews in a while. She got a similar bump around this time in 2007 and everyone thought she would win the nomination. But, things changed quickly in November-December. I expect it will again this time. She is loathed among independents and Republicans. Bernie is going to do better than polling due to crossover votes from independents.

Plus, PPP was a disaster in 2014 polling. I can't take them with any seriousness in the primaries now.

so it's going to be either Hillary Clinton winning the GE or whoever their nominee is. Bernie Sanders is no going to be the Democratic nominee... ever. I'm always right.

Most people have caller ID and ignore them. The poll may be right . . . or not.

Toss it in the trash.

49 States (plus DC) to go.

And Hillary doesn't lead in 49 states. Bernie clearly leads in Vermont. And he was up in the latest poll in Maine and Utah. There are other states he could be up in that haven't been polled for a while.

Or did you forget ?

...20 million Democrats wouldn't vote the way -I- wanted them to?

The differences are too fundamental. Just prolonged.

Maybe yes ....maybe no. .........maybe maybe ?