For petes sake THE SUPER RICH & WALL STREET are HER BASE! They are HRC and her people!
This post would be rich, if it weren't so ridiculous.

hope
[hohp]
verb (used without object), hoped, hoping.
8.
to feel that something desired may happen:

stands for with Mr. Hope and change?

Saying is one thing - acting is a mutually exclusive matter.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

On CBS Nightly (becoming NeoFox more & more) Nancy Cordess cut off reporting &censored Hillary's 4 pt speech...points 3 & 4, one of which was getting "untraceable" money out of politics. Instead Cordess decided to remind America that Hillary's criticism of money in politics was "from someone expected to raise 2 billion dollars." I was stunned at not only Cordess' unabashed censorship but also the blatant editorializing instead of reporting.


Overturning Citizens United with a national amendment is pretty hard, neigh impossible, to achieve. (27 states have Repub/Koch/ALEC governors) So it's a hollow talking point to promise. Anyone running for my vote, personally, should be talking about what Presidential executive orders they'll initiate on day one. That would include changing the IRS language for "social welfare" exemptions back to its original language: to get both the taxfree and anonymity privilege orgs (Pacs) would need to demonstrate that they are"exclusively" not "predominately" charitable orgs for social benefit. That's how the IRS statute was written and it can be changed back at the IRS anytime.

This would make any dark money unable to claim charitable exemption for propoganda and remove their legal steamrolling and silence their fake outrage machine. Promoting hate, pollution, sexism and injustice couldnever qualify as social welfare planks. And this simple one word fix in the IRS statute could not be called partisan because it would be a uniform statute. And again, it would take away the dark, even foreign money's anonymity. This is the concrete, simple and non partisan "fix" Hillary should be citing as a
presidential action to get "untraceable" money and cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars of involuntary funding by taxpayers for dark money "tax free" propaganda ...maybe Hillary's highlighting this will get Obama to do it now and not wait.

what a hypocrite........

Just look at her donors list....

specific policy proposals. Her website contains nothing but platitudes.

nothing specific. Nada.

How did George W Bush get 'elected' to the Presidency? By saying virtually nothing about what he believed or how he would govern. I should say, nothing publicly. Hillary Clinton has become a master practitioner of this art, to the extent that it is virtually impossible to assess her policy positions on just about anything.

She's also very good at carefully sounding support for progressive causes after the battles have already been fought by others taking chances, or if the battles are still under way but American support for the relatively progressive position has grown very substantial...

So she's been collecting money this whole time in anticipation of this moment. We all knew this and to say otherwise would be breathtakingly disingenuous.

And now that she's made her pile she suddenly has a change of heart and wants the money turned off as she's getting ready to spend her pile. This is beyond cynical. I live in the country, I know BS when I smell it. If she's so serious she's free to donate the money she made from Wall St. down to whatever her contenders have.

Smells like seeking power for power's sake.

Now I want to know what policies she supports to achieve that. And yeah, she's had PLENTY OF TIME. Her website is bullshit. No there there.

I have no idea what she wants to DO with the presidency once she gets it. Her present statements don't jibe with her prior behavior. So which Hillary should I expect to see once the campaign is over?

'Hi, I'm campaigning by meeting only with people I know will kiss my feet and stroke my ego so I can get pretty photo ops to show I care and am connected. All without ever having to leave my scooby-mobile bubble. And isn't it cute and adorqble and so connectable that I named my van Scooby?'

To quote a movie: "these are serious times, and we need serious people" Hillary needs to up her game and give us real positions, state her agenda.

for her positions or even issues! Nothing. It is absolutely insulting and tone deaf. She is saying, help me win but giving us no why.

It can only be assumed that she wants to avoid being committed to a position so that she can shift and squirm later. It's a horrible indicator of how this campaign will be run.

The way things are stacked up now, nobody can aspire to national office without hitting up the guys with the deep pockets.

cali is right, this is insulting.

saying something to placate the masses all the while knowing it will likely never happen, and even if it does, it will be long after she is done running for anything. Meanwhile I haven't heard her suggesting she will stop taking huge donation$ from the super rich....

in the constitutional amendment process.

At this point her campaign, and the independent organizations that will support her campaign, have collected only a small fraction of the money they are going to collect for this election.

And as far as I'm concerned, she needs to continue to collect her pile from wherever she can find it. A politician can't get anything done unless they actually win the election.

But the OP is about her asking other candidates, including Democratic primary challengers, to eschew their own piles.

It's cynicism and hypocrisy at its glaringly obvious and I'm confident in saying it'll probably blow-up in her face in less-homogenous environs (which plays against the we-need-to-win-this canard).

She's not asking anyone to "eschew their own piles." She is advocating in favor of laws that limit where candidates can raise their money.

It is not cynical or hypocritical. Yes, it can be spun as cynical or hypocritical. But the truth is that Hillary's position is based in cold reality. Any candidate that aspires to win the presidency is going to take advantage of every opportunity available to them. Collecting as much money as possible is part of that. No candidate is going to voluntarily disarm if they hope to win. The only way to decrease the influence of money in politics is to change the law so everyone is bound by the same rules.

But what can be done to overturn a suite of Supreme Court decisions okaying uncontrolled money?

The current majority, however, doesn't appear to be going anywhere. A President Clinton seems likely to get to replace only Ginsburg.

The Senate will CONFIRM a nominee.
Without the Senate, Dems will NOT
get a pro-choice justice confirmed.

We have no GUARANTEE who any
president would nominate.
Why vote based on a guess?
Because, republicans?

Lets stop fear mongering over SCOTUS.
Single issue voting is a losing proposition.

See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=107&session=1&vote=00064

Hilariously rich, in fact.

I intend to cast my vote for Hillary if and when she is the democratic candidate for the United States. In many ways, I admire her, but her love of Wall Street money is not one of them.

CEO pay is only about preventing a primary challenge from the left. If you think that any serious attempt will be made in this direction, you haven't been paying attention lately.

"The (wo)man who views things at 50 the same way (s)he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his(her) life."--Muhammad Ali

corporate money and the ultra wealthy are the lifeblood of politics today.

taking the "super rich" out of the donation equation is like removing the heart to save the body.

At the end of the day, let's see who are her biggest donators, until then this is nothing more than false platitudes.

and to note, I'm slamming the statement, not the person. While I would prefer Warren and Bernie over Hillary, if she gets the nod, then she gets my vote. But until then everything any politician says is always suspect.

this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026506869

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

That's nice but unfortunately a call doesn't mean it WILL happen.

Remember how populist Obama was during the campaign trail until he won.

Then he announced that he was a "New Democrat", which is decidedly NOT a populist Democrat.

But go on, Hope, change and all that

I no longer pay attention to anything said on the stump -- it's ALL about actions. And she has quite the long record on this issue...

Does ANYONE believe
Congress will give up
all that slush?

Seriously?

It would be easier to pass a law
to drug test every Congress Critter
than to get them to forgo campaign cash.

Empty rhetoric with no accountability.

This Congress would never pass that type of legislation because they are all pigs at the trough.

This will have to be done, and will be done, without Washington: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

to win through benefit of uncontrolled money?

Or should we forget who is funding her?