HRC: media hype and corporate promo girl

The two kinda go hand in hand.

First, objectively, what has she really done that qualifies her as a serious candidate? She was a corporate lawyer most of her life, and then her husband was elected president. When he left office, they moved to a new state, and she took advantage of the change in circumstances to get elected to the Senate.

So the first lesson we learn is -- marry well. HRC is the front runner because that's what the media wants. She's a good story.

Ok, if that's unfair, let's take a look at her record in the senate. She's a good "pothole" senator, responds well to constituency issues. I give her credit for that, and for that she deserves to be reelected to the senate.

She has not demonstrated any leadership in the senate. Let's consider the circumstances. We are in exceptional circumstances. We have a president who has expanded presidential powers in unprecedented fashion, started a war under questionable pretenses, at best, has mismanaged that war in spectacular fashion, engaged in unthinkable levels of corruption and cronyism, has limited civil liberties, made breathtakingly bad appointments to key judicial positions, sponsored reckless tax cuts, bankrupted our treasury, presided over the destruction of our manufacturing based and put us in hock to the Chinese.

If this country ever recovers from the Bush administration, it will take 30 to 50 years.

How did this happen? Our government is designed with a system of checks and balances. Why didn't those checks and balances stop Bush? What went wrong?

Congress failed us. Congress is supposed to put the brakes on an out of control president like Bush. Of the two houses, the Senate has the most "braking" ability, because of the power of the filibuster and its role in judicial appointments.

Where did Hillary stand on stopping Bush? Where was real leadership when we needed it? Hillary was part of the failure of the Senate.

A real leader would have acted differently. Voted against ALL of Bushes initiatives, including the war, the patriot act, the tax cuts.

A real leader would be making impeachment part of the daily discourse.

These same criticisms can be leveled against most of the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Kucinich (and Gravel, if you consider him a candidate).

I guess the question becomes: Are you a Democrat, or are you a Republican Lite? The neo-con movement has pushed the Republican party so far to the right that people like Clinton, who 40 years ago would have been Republicans, can plausibly pose as Democrats. But let's get real, this woman sat on the Board of Directors of WalMart Corporation. WALMART! I can't think of a single corporation that has done more to undermine the American worker than WalMart, and this woman sat on the Board of Directors. She was responsible for directing the actions and policies of that corporation.

Move forward to the present. Hillary is taking money from Rupert Murdoch. RUPERT MURDOCH! The man who is responsible for Fox News and who, more than anybody else, represents the destruction of responsible media and the conversion of the media from the fourth estate to the propaganda wing of the government.

A Clinton administration will not reverse the policies of the Bush Administration. At most she will slow them down, but she'll lead us to the same place at the end of the day. Better to get there quickly than slowly, if you ask me.

Either we elect a real Democrat, or none at all.

nice post!

I have never seen any real leadership from HRC.
Even her Senate position was just a stepping stone
to be used on the way to a presidential run. It was
never about being a Senator and was all about running
for president. Pure ambition right from the beginning.

Like Isabel Peron, Imelda Marcos and a few other
first ladies, being married to a former President seems
to be their major qualification for a presidential bid.

kind of president she'd be?

Instead of standing up and being a leader, she went with the flow and avoided controversy in order to insure her re-election. She may be the "pot hole" senator, but as New Yorker in upstate, I haven't really noticed any difference between her and Schumer.

Or that Edwards is wrong to mention it?

Republicans"
Humphey was our candidate 40 years ago. Was he more liberal than Clinton?

was a Goldwater Girl.

I was playing with my Barbies and listening to 45s on my record player.Nice dodge. Was Humphey more liberal than Clinton?

Really.

"The neo-con movement has pushed the Republican party so far to the right that people like Clinton, who 40 years ago would have been Republicans, can plausibly pose as Democrats"
I'm asking, was the political candidate in 1968 more liberal than Clinton? If so,how?

because you aren't interested in a real answer. But to close, I will say that if Nixon was more liberal than the current presumptive Democratic nominee, it is common sense that his opponent on the left was even more liberal. It was the midway through the Great Society, War on Poverty, environmental protection was a real concern, the Vietnam war was central for the election, Nixon engaged in detente with China, the list is endless. Humphrey was on the correct side of those issues, Nixon less so, but more than the current Democratic nominee.

Corporate "centrism" is now considered mainstream left.

Accept it or not.

Humphey was no more or less liberal than Clinton.

you are absolutely wrong, strange that you could read anything like that from my comment. You must not read answers.

Hillary is to the right of Nixon and Humphrey, please read my post above.

In 1968 she worked for Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.

DSB

You have to judge people in the context of their times. Humphrey was far out front on the issues of human and civil rights, in the 40s, long before those ideas were accepted by the mainstream.

Show me one issue where HRC is in the forefront, where she TAKES A RISK, on behalf of the POWERLESS and the POOR.

Hillary is not a pioneer on any issue, she ventures forth only when it's safe. In short, she tests the wind (on social issues), and she follows it. On economic issues, she follows the flow of money.

We can do better than HRC. So much better.

by that logic, no one would ever have been elected president.

:eyes:

and that's not a reason to vote for her. She's been an able Senator for her State. She could do well being Senator from NY for the rest of her life. But, her qualifications for President always come from her association with her husband. In this respect she's the least qualified by experience of all the candidates (excepting John Edwards) because she hasn't been elected for any office but Senate...and she was she wife of a Governor...but that doesn't mean she governed. Wife of a President...but she wasn't a President or VP.