from the left on it by arguing for its necessity. Obama pretty much went on to concede that point by including it.

Mandating that everyone buy insurance is not a leftist position. I would agree that if you wanted to pass a republican health insurance reform package where you do not replace insurance companies with the Government but force Insurance companies to insure everyone at the last moment, mandatory purchase makes sense. However, this was the republican plan.

In contrast, at least while campaigning, BHO had a health insurance plan that was basically similar to HRC except that he did not mandate that we give over the entire health care industry to private insurance and at the center of his plan was a public option. We know what happened to that campaign plan which is why some of us do not believe HRC when she "veers" left when her recent history is all corporate.

When everyone chips in for the greater good, that's not a "rightie" stance.

You are mixing arguments. Hilary's plan was exactly RomneyCare which started as Nixon's health care plan than was adopted by the Heritage thinkers. It is pretty much what we ended up with. However, in no sense of the word, is it a left plan. It is the republican plan and was for years.

The left plan was more government involvement. Now, if you want to pass a rightward leaning plan, where Insurer's have to accept every applicant (no pre existing conditions), you need some form of a mandate. However, thats only in a right leaning solution to the health care problems we were facing. This is your confusion, I can agree that if you want insurer's to forgo pre-existing conditions, everyone has to be insured (i.e. a mandate). However, thats only in a rightward leaning insurance plan.

In that regard, Obama's plan although more left because it did not mandate that you buy from private corporations and you could buy from a Government started Insurer (the public option) really does not work. If you want to run health care through insurance company's you need some form of a mandate. However, anyone advocating that solution is coming from the right side of the political spectrum. NOT THE LEFT. HRC did not really attack BHO's health care plan. BHO did attack HRC's in debates. He attacked it from the left because he attacked the mandate. I did not really think his plan made sense but it was left of HRC because it did not have a mandate and did have a Public Option as its core proposal. When in office. he abandoned his own plan for the republican plan basically in the form proposed by HRC. However, again it is not a left solution to health care. It is a republican corporate right solution and has been the solution of the corporatists for years.

The mandate is what is costing me $8500/year instead of the $500 I used to pay. The mandate is what is causing insurance and drug stocks to go through the roof.

I live within walking distance of a Mortons, a Flemings, A Ruth Chris, and a McDonalds.

Where do you think I eat if I'm going to eat out?

doesn't mean he can be elected . . .

"Everyone" is not everyone.

circle jerking here?

Don't worry, everyone does it! Every once in awhile though there's a peak moment and someone makes a splash.

I have 3 friends I've known for 30 years who get together 2-3 times every year at Morton's on La Cienega.
Love their side dishes!

Last time I ate at a high end stake house was 2009.

Within minutes my stomach aches and then things go south rapidly.
I do have an In n Out literally down the street from me though!

I don't drink so my bill should be < $75.00

Not with his core supporters, but, by the time Iowa comes around and she's polling 10-15 points better than Bernie against Republican challengers, people will say, Bernie, while I trust him more to stick to his guns, is a lot closer to Hillary on the issues than he is to winning a national election against the Republicans.

That's the strategy and she'll be sticking to it.

Bernie is polling in the 10% -15% range in Democratic primaries. That's more than any Republican is getting in any Republican primary poll but Hillary is getting 60% in the same Democratic primary polls:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

I think it is interesting. I see no reason for the Hillary Obama comparisons. Hillary is clearly supporting Obama and showing love for and to his coalition. It makes perfect sense as they are so close on so many issues. There is some really good stuff in the article.

It's one thing to support raising the minimum wage, and a good thing, but she's also voted a bad bankruptcy bill widely acknowledged to have been written by credit card companies and banks. So, yeah, you're right about the inconsistencies, but Bernie has been in elected office for far longer than Clinton was, and his record on economic issues is wholly consistent.

In addition, her close connections on Wall Street and within corporate America are troublesome. It's simply a fact that money equals access and access as we all know, is not without influence.

Some of us really are concerned that HRC, good as she may be on social issues, is far less credible on economic issues, and for that matter, foreign policy. I didn't know much about the 2009 Honduran coup and her support for the engineers of it until I read an article about it a few days ago. Then I started researching it and what I discovered was not reassuring.

As HRC will likely be our nominee, I wish I could trust her on issues outside social issues and civil rights. I don't see that she's earned that.

The party is circling the bowl. The Big Tent is infested with DINOS who are killing it. So heartbreaking.

I would caution again against using the profoundly conservative business of the Senate to measure liberalism.

If Sec. Clinton is much more closely tied to Wall Street via her longer Washington experience, and helped negotiate the TPP, what revelations are we really expecting from her presidency? I would love to believe that her star power conveys enough political capital for her to begin to oppose the billionaires' agenda, but so far I'm not seeing much evidence.

Obama, in the grand scheme of economics, is center-right. Clinton hovers in the center.

Both are still far better than any conservative on economic issues.

Wow, this is my 7,000th post!

The end of welfare as we know it.

NAFTA

Revoking parts of the 1933 Banking Act.

Hillary often touts that her husband oversaw the largest U.S. economic expansion in peacetime, and that she will do the same - essentially running on her husband's record.

What many forget is that many of Bill's "achievements" paved the path for the Great Recession.

Bill is by no means totally responsible, but he was part of the problem.

And, if you don't mind, explain how repealing a part of glass-steagall caused the economic downturn.

That it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.

Primary tells the whole story.

She did not do those.

... you to explain how repealing a part of glass-steagall caused the economic downturn?

To act as both an investment bank and savings and loan bank. This created a ripple effect throughout the system after these banks began bundling mortgages and selling them off to strictly investment banks.

The investment banks like Lehman and Bears Stern bought these mortgages at a premium (something that would not have been allowed to happen under the 1933 Banking Act) and insured them with insurance banks.

Insurance banks like AIG couldn't pay the coverage owed once these banks started losing on the mortgages.

This financial crisis didn't start with the big banks, it started with the little ones.

Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. President Obama acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

Even Elizabeth Warren said as much: When the NY Times pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No.’"

The 1933 Banking Act prevented banks from bundling mortgages and selling them as investments.

I can't speak for Warren, and I have no idea in what context those remarks were made. It's third hand knowledge at best.

It's like any fire. Throw a match at the bottom and let smolder on the dry leaves and eventually the entire forest is on fire.

Knowledge is the best I can find.

Economics is my life. I'm not attacking you, I'm just debunking your sources.

Sorkin was right. Gekko did use Bailey's money in a way that it wasn't meant to be used.

The only people I can find repeating this stuff is right wing think tanks.

There's our answer.

First lets deep-six the word 'cause' as it is too loaded, there is more than one cause, plus we don't know which ones were sufficient or which ones were necessary. Glass-Steagall's repeal was certainly a factor. How? Because the big banks that had investment arms can enter the markets using leverage ratios that outstripped what they were historically; this money fed the shaddow banking system, which hedged packaged mortgages, which liquidated the real estate market and help cause the bubble. ( as well as trade def. money escaping the Russian Bond default, Fed policies following the dot com bubble and 9/11, ect.)

Now the Post article's argument hedges itself by poo-pooing the idea it "caused" the meltdown. They are right, it is an overstatement to say it "caused"; but, Glass-Steagall or similar regulation is needed before over-leveraging Fed money factors in another meltdown.

OT: the use of Conspiracy Theorist in the above is a strawman: Glass-Steagall is an interpretation not a theory of conpiracy. ( I hate fallacies!)

and instead attribute Bill's policies to her, as though she were no more than an extension of her husband? Do you not see how problematic that is?

Hillary Clinton opposed NAFTA and she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement while a Senator. When people marry, they do not become a single person, the wife merely a handmaiden for the husband's policies. Clinton is running for president. Bill is not. She deserves to be judged on HER record and hers alone.

She says she was against NAFTA before she was for NAFTA before she was against NAFTA.

and I submit it is a problem that goes beyond this one candidate. You can't pass it off as her doing. It reflects how you see women.

No doubt, we often attribute those quotes which validate our biases; yet more often, deny those quotes which do not, and premise our entire understanding off denial of the latter.

if people do not like Hillary's history of falsehoods and do overs.

What you said is offensive. Very.

that happened during Pres. Bill Clinton's time in office.

I am glad we agree on that. She is her own person.

Well said. Thank you.

Sid

she will denounce it? Or his welfare reform? Or any other policy Pres. Bill Clinton had that was more conservative than current Democratic party primary voters support.

Or will she support them?

Or will she try to be on both sides of them?


The debates are going to be interesting.


Q: What is your opinion of the repeal of Glass-Steagall?


Sanders: It was a horrible mistake. It contributed to the financial collapse we saw in 2007. We need tougher banking regulations!

Clinton: (insert possible answer here because I have no idea what she will say)




The question isn't if she is to the left of Pres. Obama. It is how she compares with the people she is running against. Most notably Sen. Sanders.

On key issues have changed or remained the same when it comes to economic policy.

In the 2008 debates she ran on Bill's record, the question now is - will she run away from it?

You guys really are digging a whole for yourselves.

She tried to claim that her experience was applicable to being President.

If you don't think she will be asked about her husband's time in office you may be in for a surprise.

for her husband's terms in office.

It makes sense in Hillary-Land.

As if she would have any public career at all without having been married to the Governor of Arkansas and the President of the United States.

it may have some nominal effect in the primary, but that is because the (D)s won't go after her (or him) as hard as the (R)s will.

when she ran in 2008. And the Clintons have repeatedly said they were a team and you get 2 for 1, and etc.,

in the same sentence.

It will either be a mush of platitudes or make no sense.

Except Bernie has been in the public eye for longer, and he isn't inconsistent.

It's called having core values, instead of expedient ones.

"it shows that 'the Democratic Party is moving left fast' and Clinton knows it . . . "

In other words, she's running to keep up with the changes the people demand instead of LEADING those changes. Again, it's the difference between expediency and leadership. But this is a person who sat on the Board of Directors of Walmart, one of the most evil and rapacious corporations the world has ever known and gives 75,000 dollar speeches to the likes of Goldman, Sachs.

At least we agree on that.

Warren will finish the job. It is a natural and winning progression to everything , more of less, everyone at DU wants, from the Populist Group, from which I am again banned temporarily, to the Sanders/Warren groups....give it time.

Rome was not built in a day. Defeating fascism to build liberal socialiism unhindered by idiots and charlatans is gonna take more than that also.

Not to mention that The White Walkers are at the Wall and they brought legions of Giants of Cash hurling propaganda nuclear bombs at the foundations of democracy....I have Obama's back and Clinton's back because......White Walkers in the White House means The Game of Thrones is over forever.

The gap between the very rich and everyone else continues to grow, as acknowledged by many sources. The last thing we need is centrist or conservative economic policy for another four years. We need to be as progressive as possible - and that is Bernie Sanders (who has a solid record in the Congress and is already gaining the support of middle America). I don't think he's nearly as "unelectable" as some of you seem to think.

no matter how often Fux tries to paint him as some radical.

We need to start a revolution, and electing another "moderate" "centrist" on economic issues ain't the way.

Violence that in this country, black people and other people of color, the poor and destitute, women and children would suffer from the most.

Do you really want that?

I just think the idea that we will achieve real change within our corrupted democracy is highly unlikely, and most especially not by electing another "moderate" "centrist"--calling that a "revolution" is preposterous.

"The Turtle and the Hare."

Now I remember.

The other day I posted that Hillary was always to the left of Bill and was scorned by a number of posters as making things up. I couldn't find a link, but did remember that fact very well. Thank you for confirming what I knew I remembered.

I knew I wasn't (totally) crazy.

and his to the right politics have always been a challenge to me.

he needs to get on his speaking tour.

assumptions about Hillary have to do more with Bill's record rather than hers

Hillary has been in the game a lot longer than Obama. IMO had Hillary been elected in 2008 she would not have compromised as much as Obama but economically everything would still be the same for the American people and the banks would still have come out on top after their crash. However regarding Health Care Reform I believe we would have gotten a public option, the Hillary that ran in 2008 would have fought tooth and nail for it because she truly believed and rightfully so that Americans needed and deserved Health Care.

No sense in looking for our pony. The wealthy need more money. We need to suck it up. It doesn't matter what's right just what's feasible. We should fight against our best interests because our interests are difficult. Let me just check our talking points...

nt

nt

nt

I am still working for Bernie in the primaries, but this makes Plan B (HRC in the general) more palatable.

there are chants of "she is to the left the left the LEFT" because many of us know how that former Wal-Mart executive has been on matters of the left, the same woman that called criticizing Wall Street "foolish." I do not care if she gets on Televisions with the Che Guevara style beret, WE KNOW HER.

However, those of us who support Bernie see that, at the very least, our support is forcing her to lurch left, away from the ears of those who wanted her to run like she did in 2008. Mission Accomplished, and because her lurching left will actually bring in voters other than those same "centrist/independent" types that go for a real republican every time, all we can say is to the die hard Hillary types is "YOU ARE WELCOME" because instead of Kowtowing and worshiping, we will be the ones making sure Hillary does NOT walk into that well made trap of trying to run to the right.

This is why Hillary is trotting out the leftist credentials:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026839789

If you say so, Mr. Sensible Woodchuck. Never mind that train coming.

Like Kerry! And Obama after him!* Somebody showed me the stats!




*kinda like Schrodinger's cat: the truth does not exist until the measurement is made

Both well known reservoirs of truth

Funny how the current front-runner/nominee is always the Most Liberal Member of Congress evah (it's gonna be funny to see them try to maintain that position with Bernie in the race).

Nor the advisors he later ditched for Clinton protégés when he became president.

I remember 2008 very clearly. I was voiciferous in my support of Clinton over Obama, and caught a lot of hell for it, too.

That was then.

This is a good article, Skinner! Thanks for posting.

and JFK/Johnson hasn't been returned in like kind.

That's an empirical observation and not a normative one.

...More revisionist bullshit...

They are both cut from the same cloth...

language regarding foreign policy did not resonate with young voters..black voters embraced
him, completely. I am not sure in what way this OP is relevant.

Clinton is now running against a seasoned Senator who is highlighting corruption in politics
like no one else in recent history has done before.

even if it were true.

That's a pretty low bar you set there.

Obama's not running.