Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: "Everyday Americans Need A Champion, And I Want To Be That Champion"
Hillary Clinton Announces Bid for President
Follow @demunderground
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cilla4progress
(24,783 posts)about her candidacy. So far, it feels like she is going back to her true reason for entering politics. Maybe Chelsea will help keep her on track. I feel like I WANT her to succeed - to the White House...but I want her to be honest with us. I don't need a candidate I agree with 100%, but if she truly wants to be our champion, I have certain expectations!
Good luck, Hillary! Earn my vote!
(And don't forget to have fun with it. People like that. )
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I almost wet my pants!!!
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Am I one?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Oh snap!!
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)I only exist on even days...
eomer
(3,845 posts)That's odd.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)Most people don't.
Maybe we should just call it even.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Even if they don't like where they live.
Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)I'm kidding of course.
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)And give up your support for GMO's.
http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-cheers-biotechers-backs-gmos-and-federal-help/
What's wrong with GMOs? Try feeding the world on organics - not happening!
JEB
(4,748 posts)Well worth giving the article a thoughtful read.
A bit of what was discovered:
"After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
Genetically modified cropsprimarily corn and soybeanshave not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.
A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than genetically engineered varieties."
Botany
(70,614 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,925 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Everyday Americans my foot.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)The champion for everyday Americans appears not to be running.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Rated as MIXTURE From Snopes:
Claim: List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.
Example: (Collected via e-mail, August 2007)
A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) " We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote! Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!
All the explanations in context are at Snopes, but essentially, they are what Hillary Clinton actually said. There's a lot more at the link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Cause I read it that she is talking about the 1% having to give up some "things".
And yeah, the "free market" HAS failed. When Wall Street talks about the free market, they mean free of all regulations.
Those statements are just vague enough, as written, to be taken in a couple of ways.
IMHO, of course.
And she means it!!!
The 1% are going to give up some things...and Hillary is the one to make it so!!!!!!!!
Swoon....I loves her so much.
oh, btw what is she going to make them give up....nevermind....I loves her.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)She'll be painted as someone ever farther to the left than Obama. All kinds of past statements will be put forward out of context.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)
since it does not include the context and situation that generated it, which is SOP for Fox News. It is easy to misunderstand what he was trying to say. I do not understand why freshwest ended his posting with
Be afraid. Be very, very afr aid and vote! Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!
Without indicating he felt it was a joke (LOL). Some might think he was a WR troll as I did. In order to correct this I have included the rest of the original article, which is copied below (minus the test freshwest quoted above)
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer. Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity." The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context:
It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.
Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.
When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.
" We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground."
"I certainly think the free-market has failed."
The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:
We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today and how we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens.
Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.
So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground.
The same with energy you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on.
And that means something has to be taken away from some people.
The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion):
Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?
A: Yes. Yes.
And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.
And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.
There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today.
We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.
And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.
We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.
"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil:
The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern.
"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage."
Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects.
"I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp#Iv4BUflhDDX7kp6g.99
freshwest
(53,661 posts)(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote
Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
Why did you edit that out of your copy and paste?
You owe me an apology. That is what the wingnut email said.
Cha
(297,802 posts)Really ignorant to come on here and accuse you of sounding like faux news!
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Since I read your post with the questions, I only scanned the beginning of the article in snopes and went directly to the part related to the context which I copied. I did not realize snopes was reacting to an email, and you indirectly were also reacting to it and being sarcastic. Once again the importance of context is illustrated.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Cha
(297,802 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)QuestionAlways
(259 posts)But you should always clearly say what you mean, and not make others guess
freshwest
(53,661 posts)QuestionAlways
(259 posts)But based just on that one posting, it was possible the poster was a RW Republican. I do not do research on every poster I respond to. After all your post was essentially the content of the wing-nut's email, without the context supplied by snopes. It was easy for me to make that mistake.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Just my 3 cents. I think it was an innocent mistake by someone new who doesn't know you..and and perhaps hasn't found the....'rhythm' of DU yet.
Not that I 'know you, but I surely know you well enough to understand the context of your post..
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Cha
(297,802 posts)that Ridiculous charge and you refuse.
And, it is "personal".. oh well, it says more about you than freshwest.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)A report without the context which would change completely the impression it made.
Freshwest quoted a right-wing email in its entirety without the snopes analysis, although he had the link to snopes. His headline, in jest as it turns out, was "And our march to Marxism proceeds!" Those who know him knew it was in jest, but I did not know him. I reacted based on the content of the posting which was essentially a right-wing email. I apologized and edited my original posting to correct my original error, as he requested. But the fact remains, his original posting was without the context which would change completely the impression it made, just like Fox News
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)I am a middle of the road, "third way" Democrat. I was put off and shocked by the quotes attributed to Hillary. Without the context, I might consider, for only a second, voting for Jeb or Mitt. This is the reason I reacted as I did. I support Medicare for all and removing the cap for the SS tax. However, I also believe ALL benefits should depend on a person taking responsibility for themselves - working in a volunteer program, going to school, going to rehab. I do not support a socialist economic system, but I do support a capitalist system with a good strong safety net where everyone pays their air share. Paying their fair share once again is a person taking responsibility for themselves, and for the community as a whole.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Great fighter and ready to move forward with the country. Exciting times.
MADem
(135,425 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Everyday folks (funded and approved by Goldman Sachs). So much better than calling us peons and the rubble.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For TTIP?
For arming "Syrian rebels"?
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)So which outsourcing IS she against? And who is "we"? The DLC/Third Way/Corporate Dems?
antigop
(12,778 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)look like a sour-grapes party-pooper by bringing up what she's done and will do
chapdrum
(930 posts)until she's elected.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Smother the rubes with Candidate X's supposed liberal bona fides to herd us to the polls, then it's business as usual after the election.
See the paid off local bottom feeders
passing themselves off as leaders
kiss the ladies, shake hands with the fella's
then it's open for business like a cheap bordello
And they call it 'democracy.'
(h/t to Bruce Cockburn)
calimary
(81,527 posts)Or scott walker. Or governor oops. Or ben carson. Or carly fiorina. Or ... Or any of the Dems you like who won't be running or don't want to run or haven't really made up their minds or don't have a viable chance at any major fundraising or other attention they'd need to get off the ground.
Yep, that'll sure get you to the Promised Land.
840high
(17,196 posts)calimary
(81,527 posts)Seems to me a VERY worthy and timely reminder.
chapdrum
(930 posts)Time passes, and nothing changes in this country.
Talk about "Groundhog Day."
It'll be the same tired, self-serving cr*p - whether from the Dem or Repug candidate.
If she wins, it'll be Obama Redux. If x Repug fraud wins, it'll be W Redux.
Rinse, repeat.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)where some of the commenters are coming from - I get the progressive wing of the Democratic party, I get we are a diverse community, but, geez louise..I'm beginning to think they want to sabotage their own party....(shaking head)
We, all of us, are never going to get everything we wish for...just throwing something against the wall in hopes it sticks, ain't gonna work....
I love Joe Biden..he can't win - rinse will use every gaff he has ever made to make him look foolish..I find him funny...and he has a good story..
Elizabeth, well my home state gal isn't running..she has made that clear..now what her future position will be we can only hope for possibly VP..
The Castro fellow - is he ready for primetime...VP? - he was great at the 2012 convention..and he is young....
Malloy - okay - I like Malloy..but National recognition just isn't there......
Bernie - Love Bernie...now there is a champion for the American people..but he can't win....too much money on the right...and we would be left with a cruz or bush or paul - as you say.....I like to bet - but not with what is at stake for the American people.....
Be well....
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)still not voting for a conservative. really wish Biden would get in the race soon. Nov 2016 is shaping up to be between two parties. the conservative part vs the tea party
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)2016 = conservatives vs tea party? Really? A little dramatic, aren't you???
calimary
(81,527 posts)Glad you're here. Welcome to The Big Debate! There are those of us hoping to encourage people to vote. And vote realistically.
Hey, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Elizabeth Warren. I think she's TERRIFIC! I LOVE her ideas and I contributed repeatedly to her Senate campaign, even though I'm a Californian. Some of me hopes that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint Elizabeth Warren to Treasury Secretary or to the Supreme Court - where she can have the biggest impact. You can bet your sweet patootie NO republi-CON president would even consider doing that! Elizabeth Warren does NOT want to run. She's expressed this repeatedly. There are still many who want her to change her mind. But I take her at her word. So I've moved on from that. I'd rather be practical.
Bernie Sanders? LOVE LOVE LOVE him, too! He's WONDERFUL!!!! But even HE says he will NOT be a spoiler so that a republi-CON gets in. And I appreciate that. He understands the game and doesn't want to pee on our parade just to satisfy his own ego, the way ralph nader did. No chance in Hell to win, but he went ahead anyway, and peed on Al Gore's parade enough - to allow the bad guys to get close enough to steal it.
It still makes me ACHE - to think about the "what-ifs" there. All those nader votes across the country, and especially in Florida - if they'd all (or even most of them had) gone to Gore, there would be NO possibility of a bush/cheney White House. There would likely have been no Iraq War. Since Al Gore didn't fill his foreign policy support staff with any of the neoCONS with their hard-ons for war war war and more war. Which means - think of all the military veterans who would still be walking around on their own two able-bodied legs today. Which means, Saddam might still be at work messing with the Iranians and keeping them distracted. The Middle East wouldn't be so damn disrupted and in such disarray that ISIS and other asshole groups couldn't have gained quite the foothold they have. There might not even have been a 9-11. Because there likely would have been continuity from the Clinton era. What was the last thing the outgoing Clinton people warned the incoming bush/cheney people? TERRORISM. It's gonna be your main thing. And what did bush/cheney do? Put it on IGNORE. Al Gore wouldn't have waited til September 10th to hold his first "let's look at the terrorism issue" meeting - the way dick cheney did - and cheney's attitude then was half-hearted and no-big-deal, not-a-priority, who-gives-a-fuck.
Just think. Just imagine. Just ask yourself - what life would have been like in the last decade with an Al Gore White House? Where would we be NOW, with that kind of continuity built upon? And considering it was Al Gore - WHERE WOULD WE BE NOW ON CIMATE CHANGE???? And the very survival of life on this planet, including OUR OWN? Probably more than halfway to reversing it, is my guess.
Spoilers. Don't like 'em. Unless they're working the other side of the aisle. Ross Perot I like. 'Cause he fucked it up for bush1 the first time Bill Clinton ran, and also fucked it up for bob dole four years later, when Bill Clinton ran for reelection.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just like her husband was the champion of poor women and children during his time in office
polynomial
(750 posts)Looking at the Republican side there are few quality candidates. Hillary Clinton is that type to learn through experience and try to do better.
Politics is a real world working experience for anyone because the shift in loyalty always scales to the unpredictable. Honesty and pledge of allegiance abound by holding your hand over your heart. Or, in contrast what Bush called the Constitution once as Just a Piece of Paper.
Yet, America is swamped with doubt from the Bush Cheney war built from lies profiteering and an economic puzzle with Federal Reserve and Treasury swindling that Americans should not have had to endure by paying for bailouts in Wall Street corruption.
The military swindle is far greater now, with a Bush Cheney legacy where veterans take their own life at a rate far greater then casualties of the wars.
However these last decades the Clintons know its not only time for a champion, but a time to float everyones boat as John Kerry once said. Or, make the opportunity available to the middle class and the poor. Expand Social Security and general pension funds that are having trouble.
True they have made some mistakes, however hindsight is an extremely import ingredient to be able to correct past bad decisions. Hillary is capable to readjust and move forward. Hopefully not to start another war.
Health Care is a monument that needs to be changed even more. Combining all of those A, B, C, D sections and eliminate the need to buy supplementary Heath Care.
Most import todays Health Care needs to have a data base for medical determinations that has integrity. Because a huge Company as the United Health Care Company connected to the transportation industry is loaded with abuse and fraud records that do not reflect good recovery for injuries.
Hillarys ideas early on for Health Care was something that is a model for the good, something that begins the development of something that fills the need of every American.
Hillary is the progenitor of our age, she had the vision to seek out change in the Health Care industry in the face of incredible odds by Health Market profiteers. It can be said to give Hillary the chance to make Health Care even better.
Its the media stupid...
rocktivity
(44,580 posts)rocktivity
Buenaventura
(364 posts)Did they just discover women? Women have been around for much of that time. Why did it take so long - other parties nominated women for President ages ago (Victoria Woodhull, Charlene Mitchell, Monica Moorehead, Cynthia McKinney, Jill Stein, et al). I voted for some of em.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The teahaddists are scared out of their tiny minds already, Go Hillary!
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)1) The moment anyone becomes an American, that person is an American every day, or 'everyday.' Does she mean people who do real labor for a living? Then she should say that. She knows that a statement like that is utterly meaningless, and she still makes it, because it seems to sound good and won't cost her anything to say.
2) Why a 'champion?' I don't need a champion - I want officeholders with a moderate degree of personal integrity, someone who won't aggressively participate in the bribery scheme we call 'lobbying,' and who recognizes that there is a difference between the public good and what is good for big business. Whose interests, exactly, does she intend to champion, given that being a 'champion' on behalf of others means acting in their interest from a position of strength or means that the parties being championed don't possess?
Everything she says is the product of years of political maneuvering, learning how to signal no specific commitments to anything while nevertheless making lots of utterly meaningless statements that sound good, unless you actually parse the words out...
840high
(17,196 posts)Cha
(297,802 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)for the first time in my life, I would not be voting for the DFL candidate for the office of President of the United States. If that means I get booted from DU, so be it - it certainly would be very telling. The Democratic party I grew up with has very nearly disappeared on a national level, and I won't provide direct support in the form of a vote to the worsening process of institutionalized bribery leading to rule exclusively by and for the very rich. (And no, I will never vote for a Republican for any public office on any level)
Hillary Clinton has come to exemplify virtually everything I despise about the decay of American republican democracy. She's a member of a 'professional', elite class of political operatives dedicated solely to staying in the game, while maintaining the illusion of representative democracy on behalf of those who pay to keep the game alive. These people continuously adapt to prevailing conditions, almost never take chances in public, and don't have any beliefs that they can't modify quickly when the conditions on the playing field change. She would accomplish nothing of lasting value as President other than easing the country further down the path of oligarchy, and why would I want to provide her with the most valuable thing I possess as a citizen of the United States - my vote - to help make that happen?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Really.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)It makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)c588415
(285 posts)She has already secured my vote.
I feel suffused with hope.
And change.
And amnesia.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)who writes this stuff?
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)comments here I have to wonder - who are these people...talk about biting your nose to spite your face...and besides
Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office. DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president.
You ALL call yourself Democratic voters....you sound more like hateful republicons...
Caretha
(2,737 posts)It makes me all warm & fuzzy inside.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)She's beholden to Wall Street, she's taken big speaking fees from them for years. I doubt she'll bite the hands that feed her.
I hope she turns over a new leaf. We are way overdue for a female president but like most true progressives I'd prefer Senator Warren - She is not beholden to the Richie Riches and her name isn't Bush or Clinton, we fought for our independence to get away from monarchies.
If the race is decided by one vote it will matter but that won't happen, so the woman I'm voting for is Jill Stein of the Green Party, I can walk from the booth knowing I voted for the person I'd most want to be president outside of maybe Senator Warren.
We're stuck in neutral now, a wrestling match between truly awful and not hardly good enough, at least past social issues.
I believed Obama's progressive talk in 2008, got taken in one last time. Next thing I know he wants to fast track the TPP by us in the dead of night. So the saying our verbally challenged ex president mangled fits here, fool me once....etc.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Or reducing military spending and increasing benefits?
Fair taxation of the hoarding class?
Breaking up large banks and monopolistic corporations?
Medicare for all?
Ending police violence?
Increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr?
Ending our costly trade agreements?
No blue links to more vapor talk, please. I'd love to support her, if possible.
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)Like others of kindred spirit here, however, I wonder why on a Democratic forum, we have so much snark about an eminently qualified candidate, who stands so far above anything that the other side now has - or will have - to offer that there isn't even a logical measure of comparison.
Until there is a Democratic candidate who is better than Hillary on all issues - and who is both running and electable in the 2016 election - I will support Hillary's candidacy in every way and I will not apologize for that support in any way whatsoever to anyone here.
At 70+, I have lived through too many Presidential election cycles where the best Dem hope was more savagely torn apart by Democrats than by Republicans that I sincerely hope that at least some of the snarkers here will come to their senses before it's too late. Because if whoever is ultimately the Democratic nominee is not able to count on members of his/her own party, we will yet again vote (or not) against our own best interests.
And so it goes ...
Martin Eden
(12,880 posts)We needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up against the rush to war in Iraq and the LIES it was based on. Less than half the Dems of the total House/Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and some leaders like Russ Feingold and Robert Byrd took a vocal stand against it.
But prominent Democratic leaders like John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton decided to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. Their vote was inexcusable and as far as I'm concerned, unforgivable.
Take your pick, and make a case for supporting a candidate who:
a) was not as well informed as we were at DU
b) on board with the neocon agenda
c) stuck their finger in the political wind of the moment
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)Of course, I support Hillary because 4 years of any Republican would be horrible for our nation and the world.
But I wish I could trust her more than I do.