I'd like to hear what HER current stance on those above issues.

She is dodging the TPP question.

She'll need to take those questions head on once she announces.

However, like many politicians, what she says will just he a shitstorm of lies.

Mrs Goldman Sachs stands for only one thing, money and the people that already have 1000's of times more than they'll ever need.

Before Election Night 2016.

And she can then claim she opposed it with every fiber of her being.

We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation... Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/why-almost-everyone-hates-the-trade-deal-obamas-negotiating-in-japan/

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Never gets tired of bringing it up. Those are where she stands on the issues (in that above link). Not satisfied? Guess what, she'll be announcing soon and will answer all your questions.

Stance that Sabrina One mentions in her reply number seven below.

She was rated as the 8th most Liberal member of Senate.

Guess what? not one sentence about Corporate Personhood or Citizens United. Also not one word on marijuana. And not much on energy either. of course it is all lost and hard to find even if she supports anything.

Or wait until the debates and someone asks her.

disastrous Iraq invasion.

Best not to listen too hopefully to what they say anymore, better to go by their records.

I also know where she is on torture, weak.

Fortunately in her case we have a record to look at.

I'm sure there will be lots of 'catering' to the Left during the campaign.

They need the Left even if they despise them.

But as I said, the record is the best way to judge a candidate.

Another good way to look at how much Corporate Money they are taking.

Nor is she on the lam evading an arrest warrant for rape, but then no one's perfect.

I'm happy to wait until the debates to compare her to the competition, once we know who that is.
I don't do the fantasy presidential politics game that is all the rage around here. Nor do I see any point to trashing Democrats, since my goal isn't to see the GOP increase their power.

but as with all the old ones, 'you love Saddam etc', it was dud.

Nevertheless the intention WAS to attack another Democrat on this forum, was a fantasy thought up long ago by the old Limbaugh/Fox/Hannity crowd to aim at Liberals.

What it tells me as it did back then (substitute the FR's use of 'Saddam' for 'Putin') is that if this is all Hillary's supporters have to offer, those of us who want a better Democrat, have ZERO to worry about.

So thanks, I like it when my opinions are confirmed.

Oh, yes. I keep forgetting that you are so much more important than a presidential candidate. Forgive me. And here I thought the country somehow mattered. How silly of me.

Are you now denying that you have posted countless favorable posts about Putin (the glowing OP about his popularity comes to mind) and Assange, and your countless posts defending Russian annexation of the Ukraine? Because really, they were very recent. I suppose if I posted that kind of thing I might deny it as well.

Yes, and how freeperish of me not to want a Republican elected. How dare I? If I were a real Democrat, I would devote myself for years on end to trashing the one person I think most likely to be the Democratic nominee, as well as insisting refusing to vote was some sort of activism. Because you know, every revolution is made by people committed to doing nothing.

Where does she stand on Wall St's control over our economy?

Where does she stand on the DP?

Where does she stand on holding War Criminals and Wall St criminals accountable for the enormous harm they have done to this country and others?

Where does she stand on the deregulation of Wall St and of the Media?

Where does she stand on proposing cuts to SS (the Chained CPI eg?)

To each their own I suppose.

I like more creativity and more up to date insults if someone is going to engage in such behavior.

At least Dems should be better at it than the old Freepers were, and think up some of their own, rather than using Fr/Fox/Limbaugh talking points.

No one was being attacked so what going on about I have no idea.

when Freepers and Limbaugh et al used the exact same lame attempts to personally attack Democrats when they opposed the Iraq war and THEY couldn't explain the lies that were being told by Cheney/Bush.

It was designed to put Dems on the defensive and distract from the issues they didn't want to talk about because they couldn't.

What is sad is that we have seen these lame old right wing moronic attacks here on DU quite a bit lately. What has happened to cause that? I have to say, I came here back then to escape that kind of stupidity and until recently never expected to see such stupidity on a Dem forum. I truly thought we were more intelligent than that.

to deal with it.

Stop pretending you are being attacked.

want, I will point it out whenever I see it.

How is that rw?

facing the American people, belong on Right Wing forums.

So, do you think this is how Hillary is going to conduct her campaign? By having her supporters use right wing tactics to attack other Democrats, whose votes she will need in order to win?

What was rw about the response. I thought it was rather witty.

Again you were not attacked so if you are trying to convince me you were you might as well stop now because I don't buy it.

You should expect to be challenged.

I know it just as well as you do.


Now are you going to answer the question?

question, you appear to be supporting the use of Right Wing insults against Democrats and claiming they did not originate from Limbaugh and Fox, regurgitated by Freepers and now making their appearance on DU. You are either playing games here, or you were not around Dem forums during the Bush years.

You can't or won't answer and you are turning this into a bogus attack on you.

Bye!

who engaged his supporters and who does not know where those despicable anti-Dem tactics originated from.

You are the first democrat I have ever met who has had to ask, or who would think of claiming, that they are not intended as personal attacks against Democrats because they opposed neocon forever wars and supported whistle blowers. Not one.

Anyone who supports dragging that right wing garbage over here is engaging in personal attacks against other Democrats.

You refuse to answer. Can you?

Can you stop your condescending attuattitude you give me everytime you ever respind to me and just answer the question?

exposed Bush's illegal spying on the American people?

And I support ehistleblowers.

According to the morons on the Right. I hope you get it now if not I can't help you.

Personal attacks are against the TOS of this forum. Now that you hopefully realize that those using those right wing tactics ARE personally attacking other DUers, you also know that if you support them, YOU are personally attacking other Democrats here.

Good night.

If I missed it please link To it.

I doubt too many will be fooled by your attempt to deny you participated in a right wing personal attack against another DUer here.

If you and other Hillary supporters are unable to support your chosen candidate without using Right Wing personal attacks against other Democrats, I don't have much hope for her campaign.

You 'win more flies with honey'.

Btw, I have a very thick skin, been personally attacked by Right Wingers for over a decade, it doesn't PHASE me but it is against the rules here.

You weren't called any names here. She stated that Hillary has no allegations of rape against her and she is to the left of Putin.

Yes it was a play on Putin and Assange.

You took offense. Why? She never called you anything In this thread.

to dragging Right Wing tactics against Democrats over to this forum.

Most of us Democrats remember well the exact same tactics.

We came to Democratic Forums to get away from that garbage and to have serious discussions about issues that affect this country without being distracted by such despicable, low, disgusting attempts to distract from those issues.

Now we are seeing those exact same tactics dragged from the virtual gutter of those old forums, to use against Democrats AGAIN, right here on DU.

And I will point them out, as will others, to try to keep DU from deteriorating to the level of those old forums we all left behind long ago.

I took no offense from right wingers either, why would I? The only people who have the power to offend me are people for whom I have respect.

I respect this FORUM and would like to keep the level of discussion above that of FR.

But you are accusing a poster of using right wing tactics against you and accused me of defending it whike never backing up your claim or explaining it.

first to point it out this 'Saddam/Putin' right wing tactic since it surfaced here and has been used and re-used by a few people.

Why would anyone want to repeat something over and over again? Because they are using a 'tactic' a 'talking point'.

Tactics and talking points are not intended to be productive, their purpose is to disrupt. To diminish the level of political discussion to the point where it is meaningless.

If BB had something to say to me, why didn't she use her own words? Why choose a particularly stupid 'tactic' that almost every Dem knows came from a Right Wing think tank to 'deal' with Democrats who opposed Bush policies?

Why do people not simply use their OWN words, unless they have an agenda?

I use my own words if I have something to say. Why would SHE use a well known Right Wing talking point?

Google it on this forum. As I said, every time I see it I will point it out.

I've never found Right Wing talking points to be witty. THEY think they're funny, they think 'Putin/Saddam Lover' is hilarious but we all know the level of intellect of the average Limbaugh Ditto head and/or Fox Viewer.

What do you think? And BB was not trying to be witty, fortunately as it turns out. She was using Right Wing tactics to personally attack another DUer. Which is against the rules of this forum.

You are making the claim so have the decency to back it up.

tactics in the first place, as always, they are being used to distract from the question in the OP.

So, where does Hillary stand on the TPP?

Let's start with one issue at a time.

you can't back up your claim and you want to deflect from it.

You have wasted my time and I am not playing your game anymore.

Discussing policies is 'playing games'?

No, your friend did exactly what you are now doing, proving what I have stated all along, that those Right Wing tactics are used to try to distract from the issues, when doing so is inconvenient.

YOU and BB have been playing games, same old political games.

I merely played along to demonstrate these tactics.

So thank you for proving my point.

Clearly you don't want to talk about issues.

I do, so good night, just remember, sooner or later Hillary will HAVE to tell people where she stands on the issues, and all the Right Wing personal attacks by her supporters on Dems who are asking, won't help her one bit.

You won't give me the respect of answering my questions you will get no responses from me.

Now please leave me alone.

cry when you are called on it. 'Leave me alone'? Really? Then refrain from rah rahing right wing personal attacks on other DUers in the future. I can assure you I will be more than happy to leave you alone. If you don't want to be called on personally attacks, then don't do it.

You are lucky I didn't alert but instead gave you an opportunity to explain and/or apologize.

It's clear you both do not want to discuss Hillary's stand on the issues and used Right Wing personal attacks to try to distract from people from the issues.

Hillary has to state where she stands on issues, and you can personally attack, then pretend you did not, all you want, those who are asking her to explain her position, but she will STILL have to say 'No I don't support the TPP', or Yes, I do support the TPP'.

Now you leave ME alone.

And don't give me empty threats of alerting on me.

If you think I said something that should be alerted on then go ahead and do it but don't give me empty threats.


You made accusations and coukd never back them up.

you continued to defend it, in post after post. I do not need to 'put up' anything, you put it there yourself and the sub thread with your defense of a Right Wing personal attack on another DUer is right there.

And stop with the pretense that you don't know what a Right Wing attack is. It only makes you look like you are trying to get out of it. Own up to it. I would especially if it was so obvious, but then I have never used Right Wing talking points/Tactics against anyone, because they are too stupid to accomplish anything worthwhile.

But you both succeeded, by using that right wing tactic, in NOT discussing Hillary's Policies. Which is what those Right Wing tactics are intended to do.

What is Hillary's position on the TPP? I don't expect an answer, but trying to keep this thread on topic.

Saying the thing about Assanges rape allegation is not a rw attack.

I can't say it has been fun bevcause I just spent several hours trying to get you to explain your claim but you refused to.

I am done with your games. If you can't back up your claim there is no point in continuing this chat.

Take care of yourself.

That Justin wrote? What right-wing attack? You are the one calling people right wingers. Justin is probably the most polite member of this site. That he doesn't oppose who you tell him to doesn't make him a right winger, particularly when we are talking about a Democrat.

I posted to a source about Clinton's positions on the issues. That is where you entered this thread. You weren't interested in that. And really, why should Justin or I have to convince you to support a Democrat?

Why would you lower yourself to have a conversation with a right-winger such as myself?

I don't speak for Clinton or any other candidate. I suggest you wait for the debates or for her to make a policy statement if you want any information other than what is already in the public record.

I'm not wasting my time trying to convince anyone, least of all you, who to vote for, particularly when we don't know who the candidates are yet. Your blue state electors go to the Democrats regardless. The rest is just noise.

But people are going to be asking, because it directly affects their lives what those in DC decide to do wrt to issues that concern the people.

If discussing issues is 'playing' to you, that explains all your posts personally attacking those who do want to know what candidates stand for.

You are one person. Comments on your VIEWS are not personal attacks. That you consider them attacks indicates you are uncomfortable with your positions on those issues. Being left or right doesn't hinge around absolute deference to you. You are not immune from criticism on positions you take. No one forced you to respond to me, particularly when your post didn't even relate to mine. I am not a right winger because I fail to pay homage to you and instead comment on what I see as an astounding disconnect in your views. You quite proudly post your OPs. Now you are put out because I notice the positions you publicly take? And even more strangely you continue to refer to yourself in the royal plural. I'm sorry, but I see you as an ordinary human being, who can be questioned like any other. I do not share your view that you, more than the President or the likely contenders for the 2016 nomination, represent Democrats writ large. You are not the embodiment of the Democratic party or Democrats generally. In fact, you have made no secret of the fact you don't think much of the party. So this continual reference to yourself, one person, as "Democrats" is frankly bizarre. You are no more important than any other member of this site or any other human being on the planet, and there is no reason you should expect me or anyone else here to pay deference to you.

In the future, save yourself the agony and don't respond to my posts.

What is Hillary's stand on the TPP?

Is she still supporting neocon foreign policies, as she explained it a few years ago 'proxy wars' iow, to keep their wars going, but using our allies for 'boots on the ground' because, as she explained it, we don't want to be seen as always invading other countries' or words to that affect.

Has she changed her mind on this most important, life and death matter?

And what is her position on the Chained CPI/Cuts to SS?

You are rambling on about, who knows what, but not once have you addressed the issues people are concerned about.

Did Sabrina stick up for Roman Polanski or something?

And even if she did, what does that have to do with presidential nomination politics?

She responded to my post, and I get to respond how I see fit. It was my way of saying I don't put much stock in her judgment.

As I said in another post in response to her, I'll compare Democratic presidential candidates when we actually have some. There are enough people here trashing Democrats. I don't feel the need to join in, principally because my goal is not to see the GOP regain the White House. I posted a link to a source that lays out some of Clinton's positions on issues because the OP asked. Naturally most have no interest in that because they much prefer to project what they want on to Clinton. That is among the reasons I place no credibility in many opinions here, that and the fact that while some rail about Clinton they will brook no criticism of murderous despots like Putin and work tirelessly to defend an accused rapist like Assange's evasion from justice. In light of that, I find pretensions of moral superiority to be misplaced.

with a Presidential Candidate's position on important issues?

Is it that you don't know so you think resorting to 15 year old Right Wing Think Tank insults against Dems will help get support for Clinton?

I too would love to know what personal attacks against other Democrats are going to do to help Clinton win?

when you say Democrats? After years of attacking Clinton, you insist that I not make an observation about the obvious contradiction in your admiration for Putin and Assange and contempt for Clinton? If you consider a bit of snark about positions you have taken openly to be attacks, perhaps you ought to rethink those positions? As for your imperious attitude elevating yourself above the field of candidates running for president, I don't even know how to deal with that.

oppose Whistle Blowing?

I agree you don't kow how to deal with Democrats' opposition to those policies.

That was my point. When Bush supporters couldn't respond to the opposition by Democrats tp those policies, Iraq at that time, they translated that opposion into the very lame: 'You love Saddam'

And when we supported Whistle Blowers like, at the time, Binney, Tice and Drake, they resorted to the old 'so you're a Drake fangirl' nonsense.

It's really sad that anyone on the Left would have to use old, not-very-clever-to-begin-with, talking points, a dozen years after they first launched them, certain of how clever they were.

At least if you want to personally attack me, could you do me a favor and do it more creatively and with something more up to-date, than those old worn out 'insults'? They had zero affect then, and even less now.

Or better yet, simply explain where Clinton stands on important issues.

I hope for her sake, this isn't going to be the way Hillary's campaign is going to be. Personally attacking anyone who asks a very relevant question about her stand on issues.

and equality before the law. I don't support the view that if someone publishes something people like they should be immune from responsibility for any infractions, much less sexual assault, their entire life. You think Assange as an individual is more important than equality before the law or justice for rape victims. I find that reprehensible. That position that elevates the privileged few above the rest of us is evident in your responses in this exchange. You clearly see people like Assange and yourself as superior to the little people like myself, Justin, and Assange's alleged victims. I do not share the view that some human beings are superior and deserve to be immune from justice or criticism. I believe strongly in human equality, and I can envision no notion of left that exalts the few above the many.

I opposed the Iraq War and protested against it. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise. Whatever twisted bullshit you make up to claim otherwise is your problem.

Pointing out your repeated positive posts about both Assange and Putin is not right wing. You are the one who has sought to justify Putin's war on the Ukraine. That is a war you support and defend, while accusing me of being pro-war, when I have never been. You won't find me speaking out in defense of war, whether at the hands of America or Russia.

I am not even necessarily a Clinton supporter. What I am is fed up with the Clinton bashing. I never considered Clinton in 2008. The thing that made me consider her were the relentless attacks by people like you. You have pestered me about her for years. You definitely influenced my views on her. The vapid and illogical nature of the attacks against Clinton on this site have prompted me to have a look at her. If you are a Democrat, you voted for Kerry in 2004. He also voted for the war. Yet now you insist anyone who doesn't despise Clinton must be a "forever war" supporter. It's hypocritical bullshit.

I haven't personally attacked you. I have observed positions you have taken. I can only presume you have realized your support for Putin was mistaken, but rather than taking responsibility for your own exceedingly poor judgement in swallowing whole his propaganda you now turn to accusing people who remember your posts of less than one month ago as engaging in right-wing tactics.

Your post above reminds me why I quit reading your posts. You don't have any interest in what I believe, and you just plain make shit up. This victimization complex of yours is getting old. You don't seem to be able to deal with disagreement on issues without taking it personally. You would therefore be advised to refrain from responding to me again, because I won't ever pay you the kind of homage you expect. I state my views plainly, and if I see hypocrisy or bullshit, I will comment on it. I was raised on the knee of my Irish grandmother to reject royalty, and that lesson stuck.

I oppose all Neocon wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine which you apparently view as 'loving/Putin/Saddam whatever. Anyone who twists Democratic opposition to neocon wars into 'you love the enemy' is using Right Wing personal attacks on those democrts.

I also support Whistle Blowers as they are a necessary to keep governments honest.

I also support due process and transparency of that process and when someone doesn't receive that, I know that those attempting to silence them have a definite agenda. And a whole to hide.

Smearing those who expose government wrong doing, lies, violations of the law, is standard procedure for those who have a lot to lose by those exposures.

I am naturally skeptical of orchestrated smears with the intention of silencing Whistle Blowers by Right Wing Neocons and their 'allies' and will definitely stand up for those being wrongfully persecuted, tortured, see Manning eg, in an attempt to silence them no matter how many Right Wing personal attacks I receive.

Anyone who attempts to twist this into the vile claim that people who care about the rule of law are supporting rapists, especially when not even CHARGES have been filed against a Whistle Blower , has zero crediblity and definitely has an agenda.

And to my knowledge, support for ending neocon wars and support FOR Whistle Blowers has always been the Democratic position on these issues.
.

If you want to go on talking about ME, I doubt you will find too many people who find that subject more interesting than DISCUSSING WHAT OUR CANDIDATES STAND FOR.

with Hillary supporters explaining her positions on the issues.

Same old garbage we saw during the Bush years when his supporters realized he actually DID lie to get us into Iraq.

I wonder if the same 'talking point think tanks' work for both parties now? Remember their responses when you asked them obvious questions? Your fav dictator, Saddam.

I would respect even a personal attack if it was not so old and worn out but displayed some imagination, creativity.

The question remains, WHERE DOES HILLARY STAND on issues that are important to the American people?

They WILL be asking, and I doubt they will accept 'your favs, Putin and Assange' as a response.

- Frack Baby Frack

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake | September/October 2014 Issue of Mother Jones

One icy morning in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.


Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Department's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves...

MORE: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

SOS Clinton on TPP:

I think she will need to address the issues definitively for this campaign cycle, once she's officially running.

The Queen is the Queen because she is the Queen and that is all the peasants need to know.

What the Queen's followers will tell you is: Go look under a rock, if you know what's good for you.

You' re either of the Monarchy or apart from the Monarchy, and you better vote for the Monarch with the "D" after their name, as they are the better of the two monarchs.

Above all else - do not consider a vote for any but those approved of as being from America's ruling families.

They complain about the bs the anti-Hillary crowd spews.

Whenever the pro-democacy people question her highness

Whiny tantrums usually help me too.

Where does Hillary stand?

But I bet in next week someone will ask her a few of these.

Go look under a rock?

I tell you where I think she stands... far to the corporate side and close to the right.

And that she thinks she is queen who can do no wrong because she said so.

So call it whining or whatever you want. Go ahead and attack me, because that just means someone else isn't feeling your wrath.

Let's see what happens.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, that bad.

She tramples them.

And I sure as fuck am not going to apologize for it.

I like him a lot. Though I don't necessarily agree with everything; I damn sure have no regrets about my votes. I won't apologize for those either.

It's a challenge with a R Congress...

But that's a fixture of American politics... The party that controls the presidency usually loses seats though we lost a lot...But that's a topic for another day.

its multifaceted...

foreign corporations that will devastate even further, the Working Class not to mention our hard fought for Environmental laws, and Net Neutrality?

I don't get Wall St policies. But then I'm a realistic Democrat who understands that Wall St does not have the interests of the working class or the poor, the elderly and the most vulnerable citizens, in mind.

If you are claiming HRC did...PROVE IT!!! (because I can prove you wrong on that)http://ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase. (Aug 2014)
No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class. (Apr 2008)
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, removing $97,500 cap affects middle-class. (Nov 2007)
Have a bipartisan commission on Social Security and its tax. (Oct 2007)
1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security. (Oct 2007)
$1000 matching tax credit for first $1000 in 401(k) deposit. (Oct 2007)
Solvent until 2055 under Bill Clinton; now has lost 14 years. (Sep 2007)
Nothing else on table until fiscal responsibility returns. (Sep 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006)
Social Security protects families, not just retirees. (Feb 1999)
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency. (Feb 1999)
Respect unique power of government to meet social needs. (Sep 1996)
Elderly poor are hit hardest by delays in COLA increases. (Jun 1994)
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Anyway, until Hillary Clinton starts elucidating positions relevant to THIS election cycle, it's moot.

From March 31 of this year: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate#

DW-NOMINATE is a method for analyzing data on preferences, such as voting data, developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. Unlike the scoring done by interest groups, DW-NOMINATE doesn't rely on subjective determinations of what constitutes a liberal vote or a conservative vote--it sorts members of a population according to how similar each member's choices are to those of other members of the population. Two senators who vote the same way 90 percent of the time will be much closer to each other than two senators who only vote the same way 10 percent of the time. Poole and Rosenthal have used this method to discover some interesting statistics and trends going back to the First Congress in 1787-89.

Using House and Senate roll call votes as inputs, DW-NOMINATE has been used to chart every member of every Congress in a two-dimensional space. The primary dimension corresponds strongly to conventional notions of the liberal-conservative axis in modern politics, while the significance of the secondary axis tends to change over time (traditionally it tended to highlight the distance between Dixiecrats and the rest of the Democratic party; today it's kind of a more nebulous indicator of social and cultural differences and is, in my opinion, not particularly interesting). The point is that we can sort the members of a particular Congress by their scores on the primary dimension to easily rank them from most liberal to most conservative based entirely on their own voting data.

And when we do this for the period in which Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, here's what we get:

?1427824577

As it turns out, with a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).
(Snip)

Oh, and a certain junior Senator from Illinois, Obama I think his name was? At -0.367, he ranked 23rd in the 110th Congress.

(snip and boldface- mine)

Like everyone else on Earth who does not wear my clothes and kiss my wife in the morning, Hillary Clinton disagrees with me on some things. The same is true for everyone here, and some of those differences may be profound. That is a conversation we can have. But suggestions that she is "a liberal republican or a conservative dem," to take one example of a quotation I read today, should stop here. By her voting record in Congress, Hillary Clinton is squarely in the mainstream of the national Democratic party in America, and would be a good ideological fit for it as its nominee. If anyone tries to tell you differently, ask them to show their work.

One one hand she's FDR with 2 X chromosomes, on the other she's a barely concealed Wal-Mart Pro-War Corporate Hawk who is going to gut social security and give all the money to the Koch bros.

I don't think she's on either extreme- my problems with her, at this point, are more a matter of campaign style, specifically a historical tendency she shares with her husband to avoid taking potentially controversial positions, which may translate into votes but also shakes out as poor leadership, in my opinion.

And this happens to be a time in this country when we need leadership, even of the potentially controversial variety.

Waiting until a safe majority of Americans support something like pot legalization or gay marriage, before "evolving" on them, is not leadership IMHO.

I've made no decision — I have plenty of time for that. and I do agree, I am not a fan of her campaign style. I was able to cast a vote for her in NY when she ran for senate.

Having said — there are things that I don't agree with when it comes to Ms. Clinton, I don't believe for one minute she is-- as some on the web would have her portrayed — a republican, a conservative, or a DINO. You are so right about the exaggeration part.

She's a liberal politician. I disagree with her on certain issues. I agree with her on many. I will say this, her not taking a stance on controversial issues is nothing new when it comes to this thing called politics. I don;t necessarily like it, but I guess I am pragmatic that way.

I mean, I'm gonna vote for the nominee, that's a foregone conclusion every 4 years.

Right now my focus is the primaries, making up my mind and hopefully encouraging- in my own small way- Candidates like Ms. Clinton to do things a little differently- not only because, like I said, it's better leadership, but ALSO because I think that some of the conventional wisdom which is hard-baked into the Clintonian DNA, the triangulation, equivocation or evasion on potentially "controversial" stuff- is actually NOT good politics, either, anymore.

Witness what happened with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in Florida. She was likely reading from a 90s era playbook which said being reflexively "tough on drugs" was a politically winning strategy. She vastly misjudged the commitment and support that pro medical marijuana and even full legalization supporters have.

The playing field has changed.

That gives some people here agita.

I am definitely to her left but I don't have to worry about putting together a coalition of voters who will give me the plurality or majority necessary to be POTUS...

The first obligation of any successful leader in a democratic nation is to actually get elected.

That she may be operating on some scripts which are not only outdated, but actually counterproductive in that regard.

We shall see.

Plus she has some of the old Clinton hands...The creative tension will create something positive, fingers crossed.

I think there's a beltway insularity that sets in, but the proof will be in the pudding once this thing gets rolling.

Which I suspect, wont be long now.

Pence thought it was a slam dunk to sign that law — I really saw with that particular situation how out of touch many politicians can be.

The playing field has indeed changed. This is where I hope that whoever the nominee is realizes it and goes bold.

Some might call it populist.

And boomers also may forget that they're not the only massive demographic bump, generation wise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/20/there-are-already-more-millennials-than-boomers-depending-on-how-you-define-millennial/