So one can look at that record and decide where her true beliefs lie.

I am so pissed right now. She is not going to do anything that might derail her by having positions. She was born a republican and to me, she still is. If that gets me banned, then its a foot race between this post and another one.

She is nothing if not a careful politician. All I am saying is that people who wonder about her stances on trade or foreign policy only need to look at what she has done in the past to know what she believes in. The fact that many of us don't like what we see (and her campaign knows this very well) means that there will be many attempts to obscure these details. The average voter is unlikely to dig for the details, anyway.

What a terrible thing. Oh, dear. She could have just stayed home and baked cookies.

Sure you want to go down that road? Clinton has a lot of good qualities and experience and those are the things that should be highlighted. To say a woman doesn't need to be principled or forthright could be construed as inadvertent sexism. No one's record/history/words/actions can be erased like that nor should it be. Every politician's record should be scrutinized and discussed because that is a voter's absolute responsibility.

To the jury: Greetings!

And pretending her gender isn't an issue...tsk tsk tsk.

I expect the same as in '08. If you don't support Clinton, BINGO it's
because you hate women.
No amount of explaining works. It's a fact.
Right?
Now tell me I'm wrong.

How many? How often? Obviously they're fools.

shopped. What people do when no one is paying attention is who they are. IMHO

Weather-vain.

The daily kos piece is taking from a Politico Magazine piece, which is quoting some attendees recollection of her speech.

Even then, if you piece it together, she did not say liberal criticism was foolish. She said, according to a couple of attendees,

That is a huge pant load. Those fuckers caused the problem for everyone else. We are not in this with them, we didn't rip off America with them. The only work that needs to be done is for the people to throw those thieves in prison for life.

are claiming to have heard from attendees.

Unfortunately, no reporter covered the event, so we don't know exactly what was said. But she did not blame liberals according to these reports.

So on that front, I'll take her most recent comments since this is just hearsay.

Really happy for his enlightenment. Looking forward to Hillary's. She is going to make a kick ass President.

Yeah, I'll stick with the one not "evolving"!

When the polls showed that GLBT issues were a WIN, and NOT before.
Amazing evolution.... one of those over night transformations.

I mean if we are all in together and all that jazz.

Where is MY Bailout and MultiMillion-Dollar Bonus?

But First Class still has dibs on the lifeboats.

And you assume the people who did attend are lying about what was said.

Hey, that's your prerogative.

I believe HRC's words that actually come from her, not anonymous, second-hand banksters.

What do you imagine Sec. Clinton told these people who had bought $400,000 plates to hear her speak at the invite of Goldman-Sachs?

No doubt she gave a rousing populist speech that would have left Eugene Debs feeling inadequate?

but having watched dozens of HRC speeches, I know what she usually talks about. It the same theme.

women's rights, global issues, economic issues, raising the middle class, you know, pretty much the whole progressive democratic theme.

Watch some for yourself.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/

Do you have a video of it, perhaos?

'Cause we're talking abotu this one, not another one, somewhere else.

Go ahead, believe the few anonymous banksters, covered by a lazy blogger, over HRC's actual statements.

If you cannot, then the people who attended are in fact more reliable as sources than you are.

accusations about Bernie Sanders wife and her University of Vermont resignation? Or how about more dumb posts about Bernie's sex fantasies?

I won't do stuff like that because I'm not an asshat, and I won't post BS disingenuous crap against our democratic candidates on DU.

But I sure am tempted by the way some of you behave.

On one hand we have sources saying Clinton said one thing. On the other we have you saying she didn't. These sources were present, and you were not. So, there must be a video, a transcript, something you can provide to show us that you are correct and the attendees misheard or are lying.

Cali is wrong even if the sources are accurate. The sources never claimed she blamed the liberal base of our party.

I gave what the original gossip was, which came from millionaire banksters who attended. You believe what you want to believe.

And made silly "threats" to slander Sanders if I persisted in asking for your facts.

That's going in the wrong direction, in my book. Also, trusting in reporters to tell the truth rather than participants? Sure, hmmm

which she refused.

All those trillions of dollars, and none of it went to Main St.

We did NOT get 'into this together' and we all certainly did not all 'get out of it together'. Some are still living in tents who at one time were part of the Middle Class.

blaming politicians and wall street. Not people.

But let's just keep throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks. That's much more fun.

...why wouldn't it be true??

what the original gossip was.

The original gossip, in no way matched Cali's take that HRC blamed liberals.

Many Americans, and almost certainly the majority of the top 20% are currently investing in and forming fiduciary contracts with some of the most heinous institutions and individuals to ever grace our planet.
Personally profiting and giving full approval to whatever methods are undertaken to achieve it, up to and including breaking the law.
She was just speaking to her base.

Last edited Tue Jun 2, 2015, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

If she's elected, they'll say you were an idiot to believe Campaign Hillary, and Pragmatic Hillary has always been honest about who she is.

Winner!

Can you imagine how she would act towards others if she were elected Queen Bee of the White Hive?

It takes balls to diss your partner publicly.......its take bigger balls if he's the former president.

Would you expect anything different from her? It's her color!

change. Molly Ivins said it best: "You gotta dance with them that brung ya." And then there is the famous, "You can't serve two masters...etc." She is not a progressive. She is a corporatist.

Do we wonder which group will be getting the wink-wink-nudge-nudge?

invites her for a speech and she tells them she supports them and they pay her money for her personal fortune, how can that not be paying for influence? How can she be neutral after that? Democrats had a fit when Gingrich did something similar.

.. while the other guys are fucked

Hillary is too cozy with Wall Street but I'm sure she hasn't erected a damn wall street shrine as some imply

On the other hand

Bernie is ready to tact nuke the whole financial infrastructure but when shit hits the fan he'll have to compromise to get shit done too like they all have done...

Bernie is NOT going to be an exception to reality

but than go overboard with what Bernie Sanders is proposing but mainly addressing the exception to reality & compromising as there is a difference there. Saying two different things in front of two different crowds? I've seen Obama in '08 with inspirational attacks on the Bush administration to "Our Constitution works. Our Bill of Rights works." to channeling with Bush with "they keep us safe" and on so many starting things using the old "speculative fears" Bush-era arguments to block torture photos and so much more which set in a new reality for me as for the longest time I thought the shocking Bush precedents would end with literally any new Democrat but not a single doubt when it came to Obama which I really became afraid of we are never going to walk back from them and increased executive branch powers & drones and don't have a doubt Hillary Clinton will be worse as she is more of a hawk than most Republicans -- I bet most Republicans wish they had her hawkish rhetoric skills. Same foreign policy as always just more doubled down.

The one that I remember well is the mandate who Obama nailed it on debates against Clinton and the ACA negotiations were incredible as stranger than fiction -- I get that Senate Democrats were threatening to filibuster but would sign any bill that didn't include a public option so the mandate was something as "filibuster-proof" but that won over no Republican votes and in-fact Republicans who supported versions with a mandate came out against it but what I don't get was the continued use of it but not just that -- Obama adopted the health insurance lobby arguments like why? They gave up on Olympia Snowe who signaled early support for it but after what happened to Grassley & the other guy they didn't bother with her figuring her to be a lost cause but Maine Republicans are a different breed that never miss votes. But it became about pleasing the moderate Democrats. Congress was a bigger mess but Democrats against the mandates started falling in favor of it as health reform was getting worse and worse and chances dwindling and the remarkable entire parties switching places on mandates. Then the last obstacle was Stupak with his unfortunate last name though the word everybody was thinking of fit him perfectly considering the time, circumstances, and reasons.

Bernie Sanders actually had legislation sponsored passed in one of the least productive years ever (2013) and this was lower than the "Do Nothing Congress" who had more legislation passed because they could override Truman's vetos.

The Turnip Day Session

Harry Truman makes a great speech. He wasn’t a great orator but he outdid himself this night and he blamed all the ills of the country on the do-nothing Republican-controlled Congress. He also said Republican Congress, you want to make the country right. I’ll give you a chance. Come back to Washington. I’m calling a special session, the Turnip Day Session. Be back in un-air-conditioned Washington on July 26th. We’ll meet for two weeks and we’ll see if you can deliver on your plank. No reason you can’t. You’ve got the leadership. Before that session started, however, the party really fragmented. July 17th then South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond creates the Dixiecrat Party. Two days later Henry Wallace who had been FDR’s vice president creates the Progressive Party. Essentially the Party is shattered. Two of the three prongs that Democrats had relied on, that FDR had relied on for his four victories are gone, the Progressives, the Southern Democrats.

The Turnip Day Congress starts on July 26th, un-air-conditioned. Cruel to do that to bring everybody back when they should be running for office, and Harry Truman was relentless. The first day back in he hits them with a political 2” x 4”. He issues two Executive Orders. He doesn’t need their approval, so with one, 9981 he integrates the military of the United States and what most people don’t remember and historians overlook, he simultaneously issues Executive Order 9980 which integrates the vast federal bureaucracy. He essentially undoes what Wilson has done in 1913. The federal government is now integrated. The Turnip Day Session, of course, advances no agenda. It’s a debacle for the Republicans and he constantly reminds people and he returns to Independence, Missouri, for the month of August because campaign started mercifully after Labor Day in those days, and he goes home to Independence with his wife and daughter who he loved, and just about everybody in Washington thinks when he comes back after campaigning, he’ll be a lame duck president. No one thinks Harry Truman’s going to be elected president.

http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/newsmakers/gardner.html

What year was "Turnip Day" special session of Congress?

In 1948, President Harry Truman was running for election, but facing a bitter fight from Republicans in Congress dedicated not just to defeating Truman's proposals but to destroying the President himself. Republicans opposed Truman on everything from civil rights to public health care to expanding educational benefits.

They even refused to respond to the housing crisis that gripped the country, giving the impression government itself was broken. In short, the failure of the country would be blamed on Truman and Republicans would win at the polls that fall.

So, on Turnip Day, Truman called their bluff. In a brilliant political move, Truman relied on a little-used clause in the Constitution that permitted presidents to call Congress into special session "on extraordinary occasions."

Truman invited Congress to convene for two weeks beginning in late July in the famous "Turnip Day" session in order to pass everything they just promised the country. The President said he would sign the bills into law. Caught off guard, the Republicans, behind their leader, Robert Taft, refused to do anything but express outrage. This allowed Truman to label them the "Do Nothing Congress" and reveal their obstructionism to the American public.

On the campaign stump, Truman reminded the public: "That Congress never did anything… but they tried to sabotage everything. And if you people stay home this time like you did in 1946 (when Republicans were elected), you'll get just what you deserve."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-03-07/news/sfl-new-rwcol-3710_1_vice-president-truman-turnip-day-history-at-lynn-university

Republican senators reacted scornfully. To Arthur Vandenberg, it sounded like "a last hysterical gasp of an expiring administration." Yet, Vandenberg and other senior Senate Republicans urged action on a few measures to solidify certain vital voting blocs. "No!" exclaimed Republican Policy Committee chairman Robert Taft. "We're not going to give that fellow anything." Charging Truman with abuse of a presidential prerogative, Taft blocked all legislative action during the futile session. By doing this, Taft amplified Truman's case against the "Do-nothing Eightieth Congress" and arguably contributed to his November victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Day_Session

I believe Bernie Sanders channels Truman and the Republicans channel the 80th Congress.

Just go take a nap and we will wake you when it's time to vote against the republican who survives the poop flinging.
No reason to discuss anything, point out pros and cons, or worry if any of those candidates are being sincere in their stated opinions.

...pointing out how the other guys crap stinks worse than that guys crap.

We have good candidates IMHO, Bernies still a "not in my lifetime" president but he, like Obama, wont have FDRs 83% congress

If you think "reality" accepts the idea that Wall Street OWNS Washington DC, then sure, Bernie is toast.

... shit done in DC... like Obama has so far.

He'll have MORE constraints than Obama...

A republican party that hates sooooo much... and they're in control

sigh

Meanwhile, they throw insults at them the same as last time about not living in reality.

those two quotes specifically. The "topple the 1%" reminds me of Howard Dean's criticism of the "Warren-wing" as right on policy but wrong on rhetoric as our program cannot be "soak the rich" -- WTF is all I can say because I don't know where to begin -- mainly "topple the 1%" isn't policy but just rhetoric who thinks "soak the rich" is what the "Warren-wing" is concerned about.

Chelsea will be eligible in a few more years and with Hillary getting eight years, then Bush eight years it should work out well. It takes the guesswork out of the election process and will save untold billions in election costs. Hillary could take the billion plus dollars she would be saving and donate them to the Clinton Foundation. Bush could buy children's books for his brother's library.

For generations they alternated between King Fredericks and King Christians.

We can divide up into teams and root for our candidate. Go team go!

Surely one of them had a child who can run against Chelsea.

And there's a Kennedy in Congress, but if he's smart he'll keep his head down.

-- Mal

Who knows, if the media is successful in turning the Presidency into a reality TV show even one of George Jr.'s daughters could take a run at it.

There were some wonderful photos of them on the floor of bars early in his Presidency.

Last edited Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, there's "P" (George Prescott) who's something like Head Fertilizer Taster in Texas. (And, unlike a certain other brush-clearin' rootin-tootin pretzel-chokin' manly-man member of the Shit-fer-Brains clan, he actually WAS born in Texas!)

Although I don't know if anyone calls him "P" yet. I think that will come after he runs for Governor. (To be honest, he probably would be better then the current nutbag they've got in that office!)

But in this case the OP is promoting a twister and misdirection of real words actually used. Given the daily dose of Hillary hate from the OP, it is be expected.

Neither of which ever blamed liberal democrats.

I'll put you on the Wall Street side of this argument.

Strange bedfellows, but whatever.

No? Golly, it's almost like you're preferring your caricature and refusing to consider there might be flaws with it.

that you are actually quoting something Hillary said.

... criticism of criticism of Wall Street was foolish.

She's really a progressive DEM.

Really!

To the right she goes.

Anyone who believes that we aren't in dire need of Wall Street regulations is complicit in allowing the corruption to continue.

I think this is an important OP/thread -- in part, of course, because of the subject matter -- and in part because of the DU discussion that follows.

I think it is troubling that Ms. Clinton spoke that way, but neither surprising, nor a "game changer" in the sense of Willard Romney's infamous 47% quip. I understand that for many Democrats, talking to the 1% is part of being a politician. They are part of "the system," and surely hold a disproportionate amount of power. In terms of what she said, it is inauthentic, and is certainly the type of brown-nosing that many here correctly hold in complete contempt. Yet, it is part of the game.

Do I believe that she actually believes that weak shit? No.

Does her saying this draw a distinction between her and the other two Democratic candidates? I do not know if Martin O'Malley would say anything like that, or not. Hence, my opinion is "maybe." Would Bernie Sanders? Definitely not. How important this distinction is, can only be decided by each of us as individuals.

...here is the footnote underneath that table:

"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2014. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

INDIVIDUALS or EMPLOYEES or INDIVIDUALS' IMMEDIATE FAMILIES!

...and there was more to it than the word itself.

What was the context in which the word was used? Unfortunately the linked article neglected to do that, which was irresponsible.

and delivered with her lips firmly attached to corporate ass

The first one since that's the real Hillary. The second one is a pathetic imitation of Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

Would be unemployed.

I'll do and say what I have to, only when I have to .