In defense of Hillary. Don't support her primary bid but stop the "I'll never vote for her" nonsense

I was a big fan of Hillary back in the early '90s, but she has triangulated herself right out of my favor, and I'm no longer a fan.

I'm dedicated to supporting a more progressive nominee. In light of the fact that the Repubs seem very disgruntled with the choices they have among their current front-runners, I'd like to see in 2008 a lack of enthusiasm and low turnout among Repubs (like we saw in 2006) and so I'd prefer a Democratic candidate who is less likely to energize the Repub base.

Still, while I'm no fan of Hillary (or her DLC ideological mates, Biden or Richardson), I hate to see all the "I'll never vote for Hillary" nonsense which purports to be based on the fact that she's not progressive enough. Hillary is far from ideal, but she's even farther from Giuliani or Romney (the least far right-wing of the Repub candidates).

Before you say you'll never vote for Hillary, please don't lose sight of these eight votes which all benefited the middle class:

1. Hillary voted for the Amendment on Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to get the best possible bulk prices.

2. Hillary voted against the misleadingly entitled "Bankruptcy Abuse (should say "availability") Prevention and Consumer Protection (should say "rape") Act" of 2005 designed to make it harder for debtors to get a fresh start.

3. Hillary voted against the misleadingly entitled Class Action Fairness (should say "abolition") Act which overturned almost 200 years of federal practice and largely eliminated class action civil rights and worker protection as well as product liability and consumer fraud cases.

4. Hillary voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which cut domestic entitlement programs in 2005.

5. Hillary voted against CAFTA.

6. Hillary voted against Bush's lame Energy Policy Act of 2005.

7. Hillary voted in favor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005.

8. Hillary voted to protect Social Security from privatization and deep benefit cuts.

Source: http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

Based on these key votes, Hillary was one of only 9 Senators (along with Leahy, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Corzine, Lautenberg, and Sarbanes) to get a grade of "A" for supporting the middle class by The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.

I'm no big fan of Hillary's, and I'd MUCH rather see the nomination go to Gore (if he runs) or Edwards or Clark (if he runs) or Dodd or Kucinich or even Obama (who's about as far from true progressive as I can comfortably embrace). But the suggestion that Hillary is worse than any of the Republican nominees is nonsense and we should cut the crap about not supporting the ticket if she gets the nomination.

Although people will flame you, just because it's about HRC.

Whoever that may be.

In other words, how willing are you to cut off your nose to spite your face?

I'll stick with what I said. I will vote for the most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795

Are you willing to vote for "the most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot," even if that increases the probability of the most retrograde pro-war hawk on the ballot?

Are you more concerned with who your vote is counted for, or with who wins?

I find voting for a "retrograde pro-war hawk" little different than voting for a (allegedly)"progressive pro-war hawk".

I find both examples of people willing to have other people killed to further their ambitions equally repugnant.

Why are you so hesitant to admit that you'll vote to increase the probability of a retrograde candidate winning?

All I'm saying is that I will vote for the candidate who is most likely to end the war and who is most progressive. You seem to have some difficulty in absorbing that statement.

If a candidate wants my vote all he/she has to do is be the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. If he/she fails to meet that criteria and doesn't get my vote, you should take it up with the candidate.

If I vote for a third party candidate on the left, rather than the mainstream left candidate, under a first-past-the-post voting system, I have increased the probability of the mainstream right candidate winning.

If you want to vote for a third-party candidate, that's your right. However, you should be willing to understand and accept the consequences of doing so. Your failure to do so indicates that, at least at some level, you don't want to accept those consequences.

You should be willing to understand and accept that voting for a candidate who will continue to support the occupation of Iraq will cause the loss of thousands of lives if he/she, progressive or retrograde, is elected. At some level you don't want to accept the those consequences or your responsibility in giving acquiescence to that possibility.

If a candidate that will not end the war immediately is going to be elected regardless of my vote, then my vote has no bearing on the war ending.

And, if said candidate wins or loses, I won't blame your vote for the outcome.

Are you willing to accept the much larger possibility that your vote might cause a retrograde candidate to win?

I voted for Dr. Spock in '68. He lost. Nixon won. The war went on. As it would have under Humpty.

If Dr. Spock had been elected the war would have ended.

But, do get back to me if Washington State doesn't elect the most progressive anti-war candidate by one vote.

There is a vanishingly small probability of a large harm in my voting for Democrat X instead of Third-Party Y; it would quite literally take a miracle for a third-party left candidate to win Virginia in a Presidential election, but the harm caused if my vote prevented such an outcome would be quite large - the war would continue.

There is a significant probability of a large (admittedly smaller than the first) harm in your voting for Y instead of X; your vote may well make the difference between X winning and Republican Z winning, and granting the premise (which I disagree with) that X and Z would act exactly the same with regards to the war, Z would certainly cause an inordinate amount of smaller harms both foreign and domestic.

This all leads to a key question: do you believe that the probable harm (magnitude * probability) is higher for me or for you?

In 1964, LBJ was considered the candidate least likely to lead us into war. A "liberal" who did many good things in his term in office. Barry Goldwater was considered a raging lunatic warhawk.

I was just shy of voting age but I would most certainly have voted for the "liberal" LBJ.

Guess what happened after the "less dangerous" candidate was elected by the liberals who feared (with good reason) the conservative Goldwater?

And, look what happened 4 years later when the "liberal" LBJ was forced out because of opposition to his war. He was replaced by another "liberal" who was backing the war who was defeated because the "conservative" (falsely) promised an end to the war.

Using "math" - 2+2=4. You vote for war, you get war.

Evaluating the harms involved is a decidedly imprecise art, as is calculating the probability of each scenario. However, some things are inarguable:
* From a liberal viewpoint, there is a definite harm to a conservative pro-war candidate winning over a liberal pro-war candidate.
* In a closely-contested state, the probability of a conservative winning because of a vote split between a prominent liberal candidate and a minor liberal candidate is high.

I'd also like to point out the irony in saying "You vote for war, you get war," when just a sentence earlier, you cite an example of people voting against war and getting war.

Which is why I vote issues, not candidates, or party.

Perhaps it's because I'm getting old and have experienced too much of the bullshit of "If you don't vote for xx(D) then yy(R) will do terrible things...". Over the years, whether xx(D) or yy(R) wins, terrible things are still done by the "leaders" of whatever brand.

I can suffer some politician "playing it safe" and winning some "moderate" votes by compromising on insubstantial things like naming a bridge after Reagan. I can even put up with some negotiations and distasteful compromises on some issues of concern like Global Warming, Health Care, gun control, an what have you.

But, when a politician knowingly backs a war in which 10s of thousands of people are to be killed and then tries to tell me that he/she isn't "as bad" as the other politician who backed it, it smells too much of the "Good German" defense and I refuse to be a Good German and go along with it.

“In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” Gandhi

If someone's wrong on that, they could be right on every other issue, and it wouldn't matter? Similarly, if someone was right on that issue, and wrong on every other issue you cared about, you'd still vote for them?

Not to say that there aren't other issues that I would base my vote on. That's why I said, "the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot." Which eliminates every Republican I can think of, no matter what their stance on the war.

not who people would vote for.

If big business decides someone will stray too far off the reservation, they will use the media to ridicule and marginalize them, and if that doesn't work, there are a couple of other nastier tricks in their bag.

election, I hope to once again vote for the most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot, but if I only have a choice among a pro-escalated-war Repub, Hillary, and an anti-war third party candidate, I'll vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the pro-escalated-war Repub (which will be the Democratic nominee, no matter whether our nominee is staunchly anti-war like Kucinich and Edwards or a bit wishy-washy like Hillary).

Hillary is much better on the war than the Repubs (with the exception of Ron Paul, who's right on the war, but wrong on most everything else).

Hillary:

OPPOSED TO TROOP INCREASE
I will be introducing legislation that I think offers a better alternative. First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1, and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops.
-- February 7, 2007

PHASED REDEPLOYMENT
I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible, but based on a comprehensive strategy that looked at the diplomatic, political, and economic challenges and, frankly, exerted some leverage on the Iraqis who have to take these actions if any possible salvage can be made of this situation.
-- January 18, 2007



McCain:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
A substantial and sustained increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar province is necessary to bring down the toxic levels of violence there. The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own - impose its rule throughout the country.
-- January 12, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back - possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region. I believe that those who disagree with this new policy should indicate what they would propose to do if we withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos.
-- January 12, 2007


Giuliani:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I support what the president asked for support to do and what General Petraeus has asked for support to do, not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never any guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or a better solution in Iraq, it's going to make the whole war on terror go better.
-- February 6, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
I always believed, during the 2004 election, that John Kerry really wanted to pull out of Iraq, and he just didn't say it. And I think a lot of the Democratic party is in that mindset, that we have to pull out of Iraq. And I think that would be a terrible mistake, to cut and run.
-- August 18, 2006


Romney:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.
-- February 13, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die...the possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating.
-- February 13, 2007

And her campaign manager is positively jubilant that she has the smarts of a hawk.

So I have to pass.

Hillary/Richardson/Biden are a three way tie for my least favorite candidates for the Democratic nomination, and I'll work hard to see someone else win the nomination (hopefully Gore, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, or Dodd), but even if we were stuck with a Hillary/Richardson ticket, it would still be a hell of a lot better than what the Repubs are offering:

Hillary:

OPPOSED TO TROOP INCREASE
I will be introducing legislation that I think offers a better alternative. First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1, and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops.
-- February 7, 2007

PHASED REDEPLOYMENT
I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible, but based on a comprehensive strategy that looked at the diplomatic, political, and economic challenges and, frankly, exerted some leverage on the Iraqis who have to take these actions if any possible salvage can be made of this situation.
-- January 18, 2007



McCain:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
A substantial and sustained increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar province is necessary to bring down the toxic levels of violence there. The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own - impose its rule throughout the country.
-- January 12, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back - possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region. I believe that those who disagree with this new policy should indicate what they would propose to do if we withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos.
-- January 12, 2007


Giuliani:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I support what the president asked for support to do and what General Petraeus has asked for support to do, not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never any guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or a better solution in Iraq, it's going to make the whole war on terror go better.
-- February 6, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
I always believed, during the 2004 election, that John Kerry really wanted to pull out of Iraq, and he just didn't say it. And I think a lot of the Democratic party is in that mindset, that we have to pull out of Iraq. And I think that would be a terrible mistake, to cut and run.
-- August 18, 2006


Romney:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.
-- February 13, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die...the possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating.
-- February 13, 2007

Statements against pulling out of Iraq - Imean, WTF are we saying here - would it matter that we pull the service people out of Iraq but station them in IRan or elsewhere for this protracted war.

Plus i see the war as a nuclear confrontation - unilateral with us being the uni ...

Still what if Russia and China (now somewhat united against us) unite against us completely?

Or declare out and out war. Both those nations have nukes.

Will you care about her opinion on Iraq if because of war with Iran we end up living in fallout shelters (or more likely - dead?)

Strident "we must destroy these M*****F****rs As they Are evil" stance as she delivered when she voted for the IWR.

One of the Repukes that you mention?

counts. I'm against the war (in Iraq and Iran, Syria, etc.). I will use my vote in the general election for the candidate who will best ensure that escalationists like McCain, Giuliani, and Romney don't get the power to escalate the war as they plan to.

Hillary sucks on this issue because she would not shut the war down as quickly as I wish she would, which is part of the reason why I'm for anyone but Hillary/Richardson/Biden/DLC in the primary, but Hillary is not an escalationist.

I cannot vote in the general election except for the candidate who has the best chance of ensuring that escalationists like McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are kept from office. If Hillary wins the nomination, and if that means I have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, I will.

If - on the eve of the election - a miracle has occurred and the Greens have true anti-war candidate who stands an equal chance of beating Rudy McRomney, I'll vote for that candidate over Hillary if she's our nominee, but I don't see that happening so I will work for the best anti-war candidates (Edwards, Kucinich now, Gore of Clark if they get in the race) but in the general election I will vote against escalation by voting for which whoever can keep the escalationists from power.

if she doe's everyone better get behind her all the way.

ww

Clintonesque Dick Morris devised triangulation.

Quite rare lately. But yea, everything you say is right on the mark.

She is maybe too far on the left in reality to be elected president but she might have done enough to appear moderate for the average Joe.

When I read some of the stuff here on DU about her it makes me laugh, "she is so conservative" they can only name the war vote and video games is all they talk about (oh yea, and flag burning) but on 99% of the important issues she is a liberal.

Any cursory examination of her voting record proves it.

If Hillary gets the nomination, there is no fucking way I won't vote for her. What am I going to do? Vote for a republican? I'd rather do just about anything than that. Vote for a third party? I refuse to throw away my vote. I know I risk being flamed for that but Nader gave Bush the election. I won't take part in voting for a third party. Until we get rid of the electoral college (which we won't and probably shouldn't) there will never be a viable national third party for persident.

that would make absolutely no sense what so ever.

ww

professional Politician

freezes over), the Repub candidates are all even worse than Hillary on the war.

together and run..

per http://www.progressivepunch.org

She is pro business, though, and her "nuanced" views on this war have just about destroyed her credibility on that subject. She remains DLC, pro business, and wants to protect the insurance companies to the detriment of patients.

I won't vote for her in the primary. I will vote for her if she's the candidate in the general election. Just don't expect me to be delighted at the prospect.

calling themselves a progressive watchdog adds up 80% in her favor, it's not like I need to know anything more.

History is about how one stood at the key moments.

Hillary failed them all:
- 9/11 (baaa let's go along),
- USA PATRIOT,
- Homeland Security,
- Iraq war resolution,
- "War on Terror," a full rhetorical supporter
- bankruptcy bill,
- opposing an impeachment drive,
- Iran, full rhetorical supporter.

(I stopped looking; anyone care to inform us how she voted on the Military Commissions Act?)

That's a 100 percent Bushist record, on the index of what counts. She's the progressive shield of the Bush agenda.

Now she's out (in a tag-team) to eliminate the need for primaries altogether, because the money and the media say she's inevitable two years before the election, so there. Done. Threads like this one serve to create a sense of resigned inevitability around HRC.

Tough.

Nobody has to sign loyalty oaths in advance of the primary contests. Zilch. We'll see what's what in July 2008, okay?

On the bankruptcy bill - the most important of all the attacks on the "middle class" (you, individually and collectively) - she really showed her stuff!

I was convinced she voted for it, but that is my mistake. Mea mea culpa.

The truth is even more indicative of what Hillary's about. Caught in an obvious open confrontation between her supposed base of voters and the most obvious corporate interests nakedly out to eat them, what does she do? Here are the yeas and nays.

Can you find Waldo?

From http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9603

How Did Your Senators Vote?

Roll Call 44: On Passage of the Bill (S. 256 As Amended ) Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

Yea 74

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Nay 25

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting 1

Clinton (D-NY)

and you don't know jackshit. If you were a little more interested in researching the "truth", maybe you wouldn't end up looking so foolish...


Her statement on the Bankruptcy Bill





Speaker: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Title: Statement of Senator Clinton on the Bankruptcy Bill
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 03/10/2005

Statement of Senator Clinton on the Bankruptcy Bill

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement in response to the passage in the Senate of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005:

"Our bankruptcy law was created out of recognition that the world is a competitive, unforgiving place, and sometimes bad things happen to decent, hardworking people. Our bankruptcy code has always recognized that America is stronger when, rather than burying responsible citizens in insurmountable piles of debt, we give them the opportunity for a fresh start, and allow them a second chance to be contributing members of our economy. Unfortunately, this bankruptcy bill places a thumb on the scales of justice against Americans who have done nothing wrong and who are simply the victims of a difficult economy or bad luck.

Nowhere is this bill more flawed than in its failure to recognize the devastating and growing problem of medical bankruptcy. I was unable to cast my vote on this bill because of a medical situation in my own family. For me, this makes the Senate's failure to recognize the crisis of medical bankruptcy even more striking. Fortunately, my family is well-insured, and we are not in danger of losing that coverage. I am deeply aware and profoundly grateful for the good fortune we enjoy in having access to quality medical care in the face of significant medical needs. But many American families are not so lucky.

I have long been concerned about the burdens placed on America's families by a lack of health insurance and by rising healthcare costs. In this bill, the Senate had an opportunity to take one important step to help citizens driven to the point of bankruptcy by unavoidable medical problems. Instead, the Senate rejected this opportunity to lighten the load on Americans dealing with the twin blows of medical and financial difficulties.

This legislation also fails to take into account the significant changes that have taken place in our national economy and in the lives of millions of American families since the Senate last considered it in 2001. Job loss, stagnant wages, cancelled pension plans and declining health benefits have plagued our country over the past four years and this bill simply doesn't keep up with the changing times. While many in the Democratic minority tried to offer amendments to address many of these changed circumstances, each one was rejected by the Republican majority. The fact that the majority refused to even address the needs of our troops in the context of this legislation is deeply disturbing.

Offering the amendments was the right thing to do, rejecting them out of hand was simply wrong. These amendments were not about removing personal responsibility, but about being fair and just. This legislation is anything but fair or just.

I believe that this legislation, with more careful and good-faith consideration, could have been a vehicle in which we could have thoughtfully addressed abuses in the bankruptcy process by consumers and corporations. It could have been a step forward to make sure that both large corporations and individual citizens are held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability. Unfortunately, it's not where this bill ended up. And that's a shame for all of us who want to see a bankruptcy system that promotes personal responsibility and upholds our American value of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps.

http://clinton.senate.gov/...

Thank you for clarifying that. On this question, I am definitely "owned," and I apologize. Seeing her as the sole abstention, I made a false assumption.

I can't say I agree with her position that there was a need for a "reform" of any kind (i.e. to make bankruptcy more restrictive). But clearly, she did not support the fully corporate-line position of the final bill itself. Clearly, she would have voted against the final bill.

I'll be nice and stay out of this thread now.

S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001

Fitzgerald, Senator at the time (IL) purposely didn't vote because of his family's ties to banking. I tipped my hat for that action. Boxer didn't vote. 83 yeas, 15 nays

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00036

I don't know the particulars of why that billed didn't move forward. Maybe it was the sharks in the waters off of Florida. Maybe held up in committee?

Some information may be found here (Thomas - Library of Congress):
http://tinyurl.com/39j5bp

a preview TinyURL:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39j5bp

don't know if the 2001 bill differed from the 2005 version (if it did)

25 voted against it this time - and, as you pointed out, Clinton didn't vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044


For another vote scoring source:

Senate 2006 out of a total scoring range of +500 to -500 score, Clinton scored a 0 (Feingold scored +280)
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen06score6.html

Senate 2005 out of +500 to -500 socre, Clinton scored +35 (Boxer had +152.5)
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-score7.html

guess it all depends on who/what is scoring and what votes they are scoring

if it's only high visibility votes, one can be careful to vote 'right'

if votes on judicial and other appointments, cloture votes, resolutions, etc., aren't scored, something important might be missed in a rating score
... I'm sure our Senators on both sides of the aisle are savvy enough to know who is grading what particular votes, and plan accordingly

does Progressive Punch score judicial appointees of Bu$h?
i.e. 9/5/06: Roll Call 231 was the approval of right-wing, anti-human rights judge Kimberly Ann Moore to be a Circuit Judge. Clinton voted to confirm.

Hillary is not very strong in taking action against the New Mafia (ie The Banking Industry)

So you are saying that she simply did not vote one way or the other in terms of the 2005 bankruptcy bill?

I keep being told by the Hillary fawners that she voted against the measure... Please clarify

the vote so she missed the actual vote and her inabiliity to cast a vote on this issue was inconsequential to the outcome.

I am no fan of Hillary, but this is not an issue where I fault her.

acceptable, I can't think of one that would be.

because it has a record of all her votes.

Hillary Clinton woos India
By Siddharth Srivastava
March 1, 2005

SNIP

Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

SNIP

Sorry but my hot button issue is the war in Iraq. And the candidate that gets my vote, whether republican, democrat or independent will be the candidate that seems most committed to stopping the war. I've always voted a straight democratic ticket and never have strayed from the democratic fold but I feel way too strongly about this issue to just tow the party line.

for Gore, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Dodd, or Obama.

If, however, you are stuck with a choice among Hillary, Rudy McRomney, or a third-party protest vote, I urge you to see where the candidates stand and cast your vote in a manner that will be least likely to result in the escalation of the war and most likely to result in an end to the war. There is no question that Hillary sucks on this issue, but she sucks less than any of the likely Repubs:



Hillary:

OPPOSED TO TROOP INCREASE
I will be introducing legislation that I think offers a better alternative. First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1, and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops.
-- February 7, 2007

PHASED REDEPLOYMENT
I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible, but based on a comprehensive strategy that looked at the diplomatic, political, and economic challenges and, frankly, exerted some leverage on the Iraqis who have to take these actions if any possible salvage can be made of this situation.
-- January 18, 2007



McCain:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
A substantial and sustained increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar province is necessary to bring down the toxic levels of violence there. The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own - impose its rule throughout the country.
-- January 12, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back - possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region. I believe that those who disagree with this new policy should indicate what they would propose to do if we withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos.
-- January 12, 2007


Giuliani:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I support what the president asked for support to do and what General Petraeus has asked for support to do, not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never any guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or a better solution in Iraq, it's going to make the whole war on terror go better.
-- February 6, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
I always believed, during the 2004 election, that John Kerry really wanted to pull out of Iraq, and he just didn't say it. And I think a lot of the Democratic party is in that mindset, that we have to pull out of Iraq. And I think that would be a terrible mistake, to cut and run.
-- August 18, 2006


Romney:

IN FAVOR OF TROOP INCREASE
I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.
-- February 13, 2007

MAINTAIN TROOP LEVELS
Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die...the possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating.
-- February 13, 2007

If they can't nominate someone that deserves my vote, they will not receive it. It's that simple.

Blindly following party icons is why the Republicans have us in this mess right now.

so, I could hold my nose if need may be. But I'd prefer a candidate with competence/integrity.

so she can take another look at the country's medical system.

Although, given her record, I wonder if she'd triangulate with the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and the pharmacy benefit managers ... or whether she'd be willing to lose some campaign contributions and anger some industry lobbyists to give us universal single-payer coverage.

first, I don't want to, second, it's way too early. I'll go you one better. I won't vote for a dem that trashes a fellow Dem , even if it is Hillary.A circular firing squad is not my idea of a primary race. Trash Bush, McCain, Rudy et al, but start trashing fellow Dems and you're shit in my book.

I'm sick of coercion-style posts.

Just because someone is better than the Republican choice doesn't mean we have to support them. Lieberman supports a liberal issue/position or two. And we'd probably all prefer him as president to W. It doesn't make him any less of a pariah.

More importantly, that doesn't mean we should support them (or refrain from criticizing them) when there are still other (MUCH BETTER) choices out there.

If Lieberman somehow got the Dem nomination, I'd still probably vote Dem from a lesser-of-two-evils point of view. But it doesn't mean I'd support him.

Same goes for Hillary.

We've had enough divisive, cynical politics these last 6 years to last a lifetime. Hillary only promises more of the same.

Enough is enough.

I'm of the same opinion about Hils - So, if her nomination is forced down my throat, I'll do exactly what I did when Bob Casey was on the ballot here in PA. Hold my nose and pull that big blue lever.

surrounded by a Dem cabinet, a Democratic VP, and a former President as the "first lady". I will never, ever, vote for a republican unless all the repukes beneath them become somewhat sane, and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

We deserve better than Hillary, much better. And since what we are facing is corporate control of our party and our government, the only weapon that the people have left is their vote. Blindly giving it away to somebody, simply due to the letter behind their name is handing your last shred of governmental say so right over to corporate America. It is time that we held our candidates, and our party to a higher standard, and the only meaningful way that we can do this is with our vote.

You owe your vote to nobody but yourself. Examine your conscience and ask whether or not you deserve better than Hillary or any other corporate candidate on the slate. And then vote accordingly.

rather than in the general election because we deserve MUCH BETTER than Rudy McRomney.

I won't vote for her. I have reasons, which I've discussed at length in the past.

Not.

Fucking.

Interested.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending you can exercise one fucking iota of control over anyone else's vote. You don't. You're thankfully powerless in that regard.

:applause:

and the response was more like, "IMHO I have to disagree with you because .....". Now, at some point, inevitabely, someone posts "You *&^%^*) don't tell me what to (*&&**(( do or how (&&*))__ to *&#(@*7 think".

At some point, IN MY OPINION, we need to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of a candidate and figure out who we can unite behind. We have a long time to work together to let our candidates know what we want from them until we start thinning the herd.

All this chest puffing morality rhetoric is getting tiresome, IN MY OPINION. It is predictable and means nothing to me. It is like sticking a sign on your front long saying "We support our troops". We all support the troops but sticking a sign up might make one feel good, but the people who do the most good for the troops are those who call their senators, attend protests, and think about what compromises can be worked out to get them home or at a least have adequate food, medicine and safety equipment.

I think every workable solution involves pretty near everyone holding their nose and commiting to it. Pretty near everyone here is a moral thinking person, but your morality might not necessarily be my priority.

By the way, how does one voice an opinion or thought process here without someone hearing that they are being told how to think or act.

I expect to be flamed and that okay. I just miss coming here and following some really great disagreements and all the insight involved.

:applause: :thumbsup:

"DEMOCRATIC." As in "Democratic Party."

I'll repeat my question from above: "Even if that vote increases the probability of a conservative winner?" How willing are you to cut off your nose to spite your face?

I take my respsonibility as a citizen to vote for the canidates I find to be most fit seriously. And I won't vote for anybody I think would be an absolute disaster in the office, no matter what their party. For what it's worth, I wouldn't vote for the woman for dogcatcher, because I think- whatever you think of her politics- she's condescending and phony and has all the charisma of last night's leftovers. Honestly, even if she were an ideal canidate, her tone of voice and manner are so damned annoying she'd have a hard time winning voters over. Her political skills, her ability to reach compromise without giving away the farm and to build support for positions that her constituents value, aren't terribly impressive. She's been in the public eye for a decade and a half, and she's identified with several failed policy initiatives but no successful ones worth running on can be credited primarily to her. In short, while her ability to phone people in Bill's rolodex and get them to cut checks is mightily impressive, I think she'd make a lousy canidate and a lousier president.

I don't think it does the party any favors to vote for bad canidates. Why waste money and energy on clear losers? Why waste my vote, a right that's precious to me and worth defending, on somebody I don't want, who doesn't represent my views or anything like them?

No, I won't vote for her.

Putting your hands over your ears and screaming doesn't change the choices you're presented with, no matter how much you wish it were so.

I don't particularly care for her either, but she'll be a damn sight better than whoever the Republicans nominate. Thus, it's my obligation as a citizen to use my vote responsibly, and put it to the most good possible. I don't know what that's such a hard concept to grasp.

I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just feel that ultimately my responsibility is to vote for the person I feel would do the best job in the office. In her case, I can't imagine a field where I'd feel she was the best canidate on the ballot, so I won't be voting for her. If she gets elected, it's not going to be on my head.

:applause:

"she's condescending and phony and has all the charisma of last night's leftovers"

:applause:

"In short, while her ability to phone people in Bill's rolodex and get them to cut checks is mightily impressive, I think she'd make a lousy canidate and a lousier president."

:applause:

a long way off. all the money in the world won't make something happen if the people don't vote for her and that is a good likelihood.

and young people, both men and women, African Americans and Latinos, love her to bits. She's going to have massive support if you ask me. They were hot on Obama as well, and holy smokes did they ever hate Guiliani.

Here in Philly she is not well loved.

But then we hate all politicos, even the ones we elect.

She is the last one I would vote for in the primaries. But if she is the nominee (please no!), I would vote for her.

you can gauge her popularity or non-popularity by DU.

I've been talking to people (especially women) in my area and across the country for quite some time........especially since people started turning against the current administration.

There is a lot of support (already) for HRC in the South and many states.


Her life's work for women & children's rights & needs has not gone unnoticed.

minded to oblige. Pretty sad really, considering the true reality of what their narrow mindedness is condoning.

give the powers to be what they want.

Yes or no. That's all it comes down to; PERIOD.

If that means not participating at all in the sham of an election that will take place if Hillary Clinton is nominated, then so be it. And spare me the "end up with a Republican" nonsense. If you nominate Hillary, you will end up with a Republican, regardless. I could really care less whether she "can win" or not. This country is absolutely ignorant if it keeps this rotation going.

Can we "not" have a President whose last name is not Bush or Clinton? Is it possible? :grr:

...in the primaries. ;)

If she wins that, she has my vote.

Choice uber alles!

As long as this is a 'democracy' I will vote as I please. I live in NYS so my electoral vote will always go to the Dem anyway.```

I hope to high heaven that it isn't her. I intensely dislike her, I do not trust her in the slightest, and I am scared shitless that her candidacy will result in record turnout for the Repugs. I doubt it will for us - I already know people who say "if that bitch runs, I'll just stay the fuck home." I'll personally go vote for the Dem candidate even if it's her, but I understand the sentiment of these people and will be holding my nose as I pull the level for her.

If we have people like Edwards, Clark, Obama and others who might or might not run (Gore) and Hillary is who we wind up serving up to the American people, if that's the best we can muster up, then wow.