HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary 2016: the good, b...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:51 PM

Hillary 2016: the good, bad and ugly

OK, let me lay all my cards on the table.

I supported Edwards, then Obama. I still have scars from when people I thought were friends called me a sexist, an idiot, and garbage. I would have voted for her if she won in 2008, just as I would do so in 2016. I also realize that if she were put on, she would be carried to the Oval Office, as even the Hillary Clinton supporters will have to admit an Obama is the sort of event that happens once in a lifetime, just as a Hillary presidency would be. The idea of sending another nail through the maggot-infested heart of Anglo-Saxon Patriarchy is appealing in and of itself; call me racist, call me sexist, but as long as the default voice of power is "white male" this country will NEVER live up to it's promise.

SO why does the idea that Hillary is a default scare me? Because like it or not, she and Bill helped tight this country to the right, and they have NEVER shown a hint that they are sorry, or that they would try to right things.

1) The telecommunications act, which allowed Murdoch to rise
2) The repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed Wall Street to become a casino, just in before FDR.
3) NAFTA, which not only drained jobs, but made it so that many Mexicans cannot afford Corn.

And let me be clear about something, and by all means hold me to it, if Hillary says that she would fix either of these three: if she would get rid of Nafta, put back Glass Steagall, or review the damned telecommmuncations act, I will do cartwheels, praise her, and become a cheerleader.

Hillary has never allowed the possibility that any of those three were wrong, of course, to quote Bill, "Better to be wrong and strong", except that sooner or later, strong, even that good old red blooded vulgar American strong, becomes weaker than the truth. And let's not even get in to the fact that she is a War hawk. The real scandal of benghazi was not who knew what, it is the fact that we even gave a damned about Ghadaffi when he was not only weak, but actively anti Al Qaida, and one of the few people keeping Fanatics from getting into power. And no Hillary, your threat to Obliterate Iran will hang around your neck, because as much of a tattered rag as the UN is, we do not get to attack countries whose last incursion on our soil was taking the embassy back in the 80's.

49 replies, 3272 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary 2016: the good, bad and ugly (Original post)
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 OP
msongs Feb 2013 #1
1-Old-Man Feb 2013 #2
DURHAM D Feb 2013 #3
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #4
DURHAM D Feb 2013 #6
frylock Feb 2013 #41
Whisp Feb 2013 #9
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #25
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #34
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #5
Romulox Feb 2013 #8
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #10
Romulox Feb 2013 #14
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #17
Romulox Feb 2013 #20
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #22
Whisp Feb 2013 #23
Romulox Feb 2013 #26
Whisp Feb 2013 #19
Romulox Feb 2013 #21
Whisp Feb 2013 #36
frylock Feb 2013 #42
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #45
antigop Feb 2013 #7
amandabeech Feb 2013 #27
cascadiance Feb 2013 #37
amandabeech Feb 2013 #47
antigop Feb 2013 #48
Whisp Feb 2013 #49
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #28
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #11
Jennicut Feb 2013 #12
Whisp Feb 2013 #18
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #13
Whisp Feb 2013 #16
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #24
cascadiance Feb 2013 #15
amandabeech Feb 2013 #29
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #40
Maven Feb 2013 #30
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #32
Maven Feb 2013 #35
cascadiance Feb 2013 #43
Maven Feb 2013 #44
cascadiance Feb 2013 #46
Whisp Feb 2013 #31
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #33
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #38
cascadiance Feb 2013 #39

Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:57 PM

1. lettuce pray a progressive and/or liberal runs nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:02 PM

2. In comparison to Hillary nearly anyone is a progressive and quite liberal

I have no use for her myself and am not smitten by the notion that we need a woman for a President simply because we have not had one yet, and even if we really had to nominate a woman I can think of a couple who I would far prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:08 PM

3. I hate all the things she did while she was President.

Your post is drivel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:10 PM

4. Come now

She either was part of that "team" where Bill said we got two for the price of one, or she was not.

Then again, I doubt you could defend nafta, the telcom act, or the repealing of glass steagall, come back when you do.

Those policies made a lot of WOMEN suffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:12 PM

6. more drivel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:00 PM

41. more derp..

try and string a couple thoughts together and enlighten us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:48 PM

9. the brutal sanctions against Iraq during Bill's years was not kind to women and children either.

so Hillary can make all kinds of speeches about violence against women and whatever else, but those women and their kids are now gone, dead. so that's bullshit to me. pure unadulterated bullshit. Plus the fact she wasn't considering women and children when she went 'all tough' on Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:17 PM

25. I was going to respond to someone

but you did so in a way that exposed that person's "drivel"

Dead kids are not drivel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:33 PM

34. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids died from dysentery

..... courtesy of the US (on Clinton's watch) and the UK who both vetoed Iraq's request to the UN to fix their water system that was damaged so badly by the sorties flown over Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:11 PM

5. They have no reason to apologize to you or tell you they are sorry.

I am sorry you feel entitled to that.

"NEVER shown a hint that they are sorry, or that they would try to right things."

So you believe Hillary is not trying to better the world. That Bill is not trying to better the world.

There is such a large cognitive disconnect with your last paragraph that it isn't even worth addressing.

I do hope that airing your grievances makes you feel better and I am sorry you were called names. Clinton supporters just don't know what it is like to be called names.

That being said, I am not a big supporter of Hillary running for President. We have a strong field and I think it would be nice to have someone fresh. I would also like someone to the left of Hillary. What I don't get is the level of CDS shown here. She has given us much of her life and owes us nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:42 PM

8. The policies Bill and Hillary supported in the 90s have devastated this country. Her support for war

further cemented her reputation as a "centrist" (read: far right of the tradition Party platform).

The idea that she has no accountability for the positions she has espoused over the years is a non-starter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:51 PM

10. I don't agree with you.

I do agree some of the policies they have supported have hurt. Some of them have been good.

"The idea that she has no accountability for the positions she has espoused over the years is a non-starter."

She does have accountability. You are putting word in my mouth with that one. She lost the primaries to Obama. That is how we hold our elected officials to account. She still owes you nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:57 PM

14. I fail to see what you are disagreeing with. You agree she has hurt the country, you agree

she should be held accountable.

So with what are you attempting to disagree?

She still owes you nothing.


Likewise, I owe her nothing. She WILL be reminded of her past, should she run. Get ready for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:03 PM

17. I don't agree that they have devastated the country.

That is it. I do think we are probably closer to agreeing than disagreeing. I just don't agree with the word devastated. I am one of "those" people. The ones who don't feel this country is in ruins.

I never said you did owe her anything. I don't think you do. I don't think we owe politicians shit. Well except for well deserved ridicule.

Hope that clears it up. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. Like Hillary, I am a woman just trying to behave. (please take the joke in that)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:08 PM

20. If you're arguing that Americans are better off today than the late 90s, take it up with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:10 PM

22. Don't know where you got that from in my response. It just isn't there. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:12 PM

23. what if a Repuglican President resided over those years?

would you give him/her credit for the economy spike because of silicon valley and all the offshoots of prosperity from it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:18 PM

26. Nope. Not any more than I would give credit to a Meth head for a sudden burst of energy...

if he insisted that I take the drug. The Clinton's policies (NAFTA, MFN China, Financial Deregulation) continue to bear poisonous fruit to this day. That those policies felt good for a few months or a few years back almost 15 years ago now changes nothing.

The results are in: NAFTA -- disaster. MFN China -- disaster. Deregulation of financial markets -- disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:06 PM

19. "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.''

from the movie Magnolia. very applicable to the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:10 PM

21. Wow. Powerful line.

Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't seen the movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:38 PM

36. it's a strange one. very dark and odd

and many people pan it.

but I like it because it is certainly not regular fare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:02 PM

42. just as she is not entitled to our vote..

but oh boy, I bet your tune about entitled will change if she's the nom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:26 PM

45. If you read my posts in this thread...

you would understand why your post doesn't follow. But I don't expect you to take the time given the content of your post here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:38 PM

7. You should add the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to your list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured the deregulation of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between “sophisticated parties” would not be regulated as “futures” under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as “securities” under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general “safety and soundness” standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have “Functional regulation” of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do “entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers.” These derivatives, especially the credit default swap, would be at the heart of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:19 PM

27. The CMFA is probably worse than the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Bill Clinton refused to listen to Brooksley Borne, then head of the CFTC, that derivatives were going to be a huge problem, and instead listened to Bob Rubin, Larry Summers and their staff, like Tim Geithner.

Bill Clinton has never apologized for this piece of shit legislation, and many think that Dodd-Frank won't repair the damage since the regs are being written "with the help" of the big financial houses who've made out like bandits from their crappy behavior.

Makes me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:39 PM

37. Also add her support for expanding the H-1B and other insourcing indentured servant programs...



We don't need to expand exploitation programs like this that allow companies to insource cheap labor from India for tech jobs that many Americans could do that are out of work, but aren't willing to work for the *cheap* wages that are allowed through this program that allows companies to *control* these employees that work for them here in a way that keeps their wages low. Those in India working here temporarily though don't mind working cheaply for a while when their families back in India can live on a tenth of what American families have to live on here. They build up a savings, and then return to places like Bangalore, which now has replaced Silicon Valley where most of the high tech jobs are, because we TRAIN them through this program, and therefore move our high tech industry over to places like India, China, and southeast Asia.

Now, I'm all for allowing some *sane* immigration policies for those who want to move here and make a commitment to living here, either through getting a green card or getting citizenship here. We should be instead pushing to streamline these programs that aren't working very efficiently now by design so that we can have them working here on an even playing field that doesn't allow corporate America playing games that keeps everyone's wages lower.

Clinton's support for this is yet another reason I as a tech worker that has suffered from this and the economy through recent years can't support her, if a more progressive option is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:44 PM

47. You've raised other troubling aspects of her record.

I really hope that there is a more progressive candidate running, because I don't want to have to hold my nose in the voting booth again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:50 PM

48. outsourcing of jobs as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
...


High on the agenda of union officials is an explanation of how each candidate will try to stem the loss of U.S. jobs, including large numbers in the service and technology sectors that are being taken over by cheap labor in India. During the vetting, some union leaders have found Clinton's record troubling.

"The India issue is still something people are concerned about. Her financial relationships, her quotes -- they have both gotten attention," said Thea M. Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.

Facing a cool reception, Clinton and her advisers have used closed-door meetings with labor leaders in recent months to explain her past ties to Indian companies, donors and policies. Aides have highlighted her efforts to retrain displaced workers and to end offshore tax breaks that reward companies that outsource jobs.


What, exactly, are engineers and IT people supposed to train for after their jobs get sent overseas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:18 PM

49. maybe she made a deal here to speak for hundreds of thousands of dollars somewhere in India. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:20 PM

28. thank you

and I will. I will also add to the list of things that if she fights, I will offer support. I might as well wait for the sky to turn purple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:51 PM

11. Her votes for, and support of, Bush's wars makes her a No Sale for me.

That, in addition to what has already been mentioned and her 3rd Way politics in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:52 PM

12. You forgot the push for weapons to Syrian rebels, the last

thing she pushed for before leaving as Sec of State. Obama rejected the plan. I like Hillary on a personal level and would be thrilled with a woman President. But she has been the most hawkish person in the administration, no denying that. Makes me a bit wary of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:03 PM

18. Hillary with Petraeus and the Kagans. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:56 PM

13. Hillary now repealed Glass-Steagall & enacted NAFTA?! Oh boy, it's going to be a long 4years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:00 PM

16. she does tend to take credit for popular things during Bill's terms

and denies approving the unpopular.

she wants it that way, and it doesn't work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:16 PM

24. No, Obama did that...

Apparently he doesn't have to, but Hilary must...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:59 PM

15. The Clintons also set up the DLC, which the Koch brothers funded...

The DLC, and how they have controlled the party through the likes of Rahm Emmanuel who have sought to marginalize progressive influence in my book is not the direction the Democratic Party should be heading, whether it is called the "DLC", the "Third Way" or some other moniker.

We need a fresh start with some newer faces in positions of power that have been disempowered for too long (the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Pete DeFazio, Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, etc.).

We need to minimize or eliminate the corporate influence so that we can make the appropriate media, campaign financing, and election reforms that are needed to take their grip off of our government. Those that pushed the DLC in to power need to take a step back and let someone else take the lead now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:20 PM

29. The same bunch are now called "No Labels." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:49 PM

40. Ed Rendell is co-chair of "Fix The Debt"

.... that advocates taking a meat cleaver to the so-called entitlements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:23 PM

30. So, what has Obama done about the three things on your list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:27 PM

32. sadly, none

thanks to the fact he picked CLINTON personnel like Tim Geitner..
Obama did not disappoibnt because he was not like Clinton, he disappoints because he became Clinton, the sequel.

Though he did do more for Gay rights and Health care than either Clinton ever did, after all, we all know who made DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:37 PM

35. Correction, he always has been clinton, the sequel. It was the biggest hoot of the '08 primaries.

So much blind loyalty to the notion that he was the liberal alternative to Hillary, when in fact he was to the right of her on many issues, including HCR.

Hillary is far from perfect but she is not a stand-in for her husband. The suggestion that she is basically mind controlled by Bill is insulting to her and overly generous to her husband. I'm not saying she's perfect or the ideal candidate for 2016 but let's get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:03 PM

43. He was not a "commited corporatist" like Hillary already showed herself to be...

Without John Edwards in the mix at the end, Obama to the progressive voter was still an opportunity to have more progressive values as an "unknown" that people had "hope" for that was a better option for many than someone that they knew wasn't going to be supporting their progressive values like Hillary was then. I often wonder if Edwards wasn't drawing the progressive votes then, if Dennis Kucinich might have been more of a factor in the end.

Progressive voters weren't necessarily "blindly loyal", but were looking for the best option that they had that could still win at the end.

Actually, I still voted for Edwards in the primary in California even after he'd just pulled out then, much like I'd voted for Dean in the previous election as well who similarly got "pushed out" early on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:25 PM

44. Sure he was.

One only needed to look at the policy positions that were clearly stated on his website.

"Clean" coal, expanding trade agreements. No mention of reinstating Glass Steagal. The weakest (ie friendliest to the status quo) plan for HCR of all three front runners. And much more. It was all there for anyone to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:34 PM

46. I think his "plans" to go after Iran were FAR LESS nebulous than Hillary's were...

She was very up front about her position on H-1B Visa support. He was not.

Yes, he seemed very corporate to me compared to someone like John Edwards, but on a scale, she was decidedly higher from my perspective, and many others as well. Of course a lot of it was that he never really came out with the details of what he would do until after the election. Supporting the mandate for health care was definitely a stated position of Hillary's in the primaries, but not for him, even though he was fully behind that and secretly negotiated without pushing the public option as well when push came to shove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:23 PM

31. Hillary is already booking speaking tours for high 6 figures.

just like Bill.

so maybe she won't be interested in taking such a huge pay cut by trying for President.

I've always been curious why a Clinton (or any speaker that can charge so much that were once in politics) can charge so much money per word and why some people would pay for that? I wonder if this isn't a sneaky way to pay them back for some favours here and there while they were in positions to do favours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:28 PM

33. Nah

she wants the job, period. And too many would shit on whoever else runs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:39 PM

38. 2016 will offer up 8-10 candidates in the primary & the corporate media will

whittle our choices down to the top 2-3 corporate yes men.

I wasn't going to vote for the lesser of two evils this past election, but CO was a swing state & the repub men's comments about women were horrifying, so again, in 2012, I voted for the lesser of two evils. And here we go again. I've got no answers, DC. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:47 PM

39. And those that espouse liberal views should really have their backgrounds checked too...

... so we can avoid a John Edwards situation again, which I think perhaps he was allowed to stay in the primary race until the big primary days and then he just "pulled out" because of his secrets that invalidated him as a candidate. I still wonder to this day if he was "designated" to be the third "progressive" option to take votes away from those like Dennis Kucinich so that they wouldn't be a factor and he could be "turned off" at the point they wanted to whittle down the race to just two options that coincidentally were a black man and a woman that both had more "centrist" (aka corporate friendly) viewpoints.

We shouldn't be voting for someone just because they are a woman or a minority, but someone like Elizabeth Edwards, who in my book IS the kind of candidate we need, should not be dismissed either just because she's a woman too. We need to focus on their support for progressive values and sorely needed reforms that have been avoided for 30 years, and also verify that they aren't a "standin" candidate that can be "turned off" at any time the way that John Edwards was in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread