Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 08:11 AM Apr 2015

Clinton 2016 campaign makes platform history, ignored for logo-gate

This Is The Most Important Tweet About Hillary’s Announcement And Everyone Pretty Much Ignored It

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton announced she’d run for president in 2016. Her intentions were hardly secret as key staff were already hired and a campaign headquarters was recently established in Brooklyn.

But that didn’t stop an avalanche of commentary on Twitter on whether her announcement was “late” and her new campaign logo. But the most important tweet, by her campaign chairman John Podesta*, was mostly ignored.

Podesta’s tweet was retweeted about 130 times in the first four hours but none of the retweets were by verified users, other than one ThinkProgress reporter — journalists at major media outlets typically have verified Twitter accounts. The tweet has also not been embedded in a news article by any major publication.

John Podesta ✔ @johnpodesta
Helping working families succeed, building small businesses, tackling climate change & clean energy. Top of the agenda. #Hillary2016
4:45 PM - 12 Apr 2015


http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/12/3646143/important-tweet-hillarys-announcement-everyone-pretty-much-ignored/


Tweet emphasis mine.

So, how about that logo? Is it being used as a tool to ignore the issues or does it show just how little the American public cares about politics? Even supposed Democrats are talking about the logo and not the fact that one of the HRC's top campaign agendas is climate change. Or how this makes Republicans have to admit that they deny something that is a huge concern for a large section of the voting populace? And, if the Republicans running admit to climate change, they alienate their base.

Out of the gate she has them at a disadvantage on two main topics that goes against what American's believe are important: marriage equality/equality in general and climate change. How's that for a winning strategy (besides just being good sense and showing a stark difference between the parties).

Is Clinton still in bed with Wall St? Yep, so is every other major politician, sadly, including President Obama. The only two who aren't, one isn't running for President and the other cannot win.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
1. Embedded with Wall Street means that Corporations will trump over Climate Change
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:30 AM
Apr 2015

for Hillary. Just as President Obama opened up our East Coast to Oil Drilling and has supported Fracking all the way.

Voting for Hillary because she says she supports "tackling Climate Change" is like looking at an empty barn after the horses have already left.

Also, as SOS she made sure she negotiated contracts for American Companies to come in and buy up resources. Her reason was it would provide jobs for "American Workers at American Companies." She doesn't say how those American Compaies are hiring workers there for pennies and contributing to Climate Change because those emerging countries don't have Pollution Standards. Just this morning on "CNBC" Morning Business show one of her long time Campaign Supporters (Ann Richards..I think her name is) went on and on about what a great job Hillary did as SOS by making deals for American Companies abroad. And, that Hillary has proven she supports American Jobs by doing these overseas deals.

Hillary is Wall Street Corporate all the way because they fund her, now. She can say whatever she wants to but by now we Dems know to read between the lines and look under the logo and there's a track record she and Bill have that is open for examination by those who really are concerned about Climate Change.

EDITED: Long time Clinton friend and supporter Anne Richards was on CNBC not "Morning Joe" as I had originally posted. (I had just watched "Morning Joe" and switched channels to CNBC)

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
3. Very reasoned response I'd like to see more of on DU
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:33 AM
Apr 2015

when it concerns Clinton. No logo talk, just serious discussion of the issues and how her donors conflict with her running platform.

Thank you.

okaawhatever

(9,469 posts)
4. Oh please. Fracking hs been voted on at the state level. You failed to mention all the things
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:43 AM
Apr 2015

Obama has done for the environment and climate change. No surprise there. Good luck finding a candidate that meets your criteria and can win elections.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
6. How do you think Hillary will "tackle Climate Change" then?
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:54 AM
Apr 2015

Will she rescind Obama's opening up the East Coast for oil drilling? Will she ban fracking with an Executive Order? Will she push for more money for government support of Wind and Solar from Congress by tackling Pentagon Spending for endless wars? Will congress vote for Solar and Wind over funding for sending more weapons and drones to the MENA? If it does vote for funding then will the cuts come from Social Programs rather than Military Funds? We don't have the money for much and if Repubs continue their control of the House and Senate then how much can she do?

Those are the questions I hope she will answer. Because without huge cuts in Military Spending where will the money come from?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
5. One can balance corporations and environmentalism...
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:48 AM
Apr 2015

Especially at a time with no completely viable alt energy solutions it's imperative to do so. The candidate must work for a smooth energy transition.

Response to justiceischeap (Original post)

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
7. They have been shoveling out this shit for 30 years now,
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 10:20 AM
Apr 2015

about "Helping working families succeed, building small businesses, tackling climate change & clean energy", meanwhile being supine before the Raygun Revolution and all the disastrous follies that followed, and that is why Ms. Clinton will have to demonstrate her commitment more concretely to get much traction with it. Mere talk will not do.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
8. Yet, "we" continue to elect these people that speak out of one side of their mouths
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 10:42 AM
Apr 2015

We are never going to get the President we want... because people want a President to be too many things they can't be to be popular enough to get elected by the ENTIRE populace.

And BTW, no one has stated "tackling climate change" as a Presidential campaign platform. It has not been done, so no, that one hasn't been peddled for years.

Do you think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren can get any of the things done that most progressives want done? In order to do so, they'd have to sign one Executive Order after another, which means that as soon as a Republican gets into the head office, all those Orders are null and void--just like all the EO's that Obama has signed in regards to LGBT rights. If we get a Republican President in 2016, you can bet every single one of the EO's Obama has signed will be rescinded.

I am not "rah, rah" Hillary but I am a realist.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
9. She better not rely on that bullshit either.
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 10:46 AM
Apr 2015

I am well aware of the difficulties of politics in this country. That is not worth a bucket of warm spit as a justification for voting for anyone. Nobody is going to show up to vote for the same old lies. Does she want a mandate of just the chance to sit there for four years?

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
10. "Nobody is going to show up to vote for the same old lies."
Mon Apr 13, 2015, 10:51 AM
Apr 2015

Who's going to stop them? You?

Nope. Not you or I. The average American is underinformed and not well-educated on political issues. They are going to vote for who they think is going to take the country in the direction they want it to. One of those issues that concern people is climate change. They don't care about the how's and why's or Climate Change, they just want someone to make all the right sounds about it.

They also want someone who's going to make all the right sounds on equality, Indiana showed that.

If you think that most of the voting population actually cares about "your" issues, you're deluding yourself.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clinton 2016 campaign mak...