Robert Reich: I’ve known Hillary since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is.

[kpete]

TUESDAY, APR 14, 2015 07:45 AM PDT
Robert Reich: Hillary’s values aren’t the problem




Some wonder about the strength of her values and ideals. I don’t. I’ve known her since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is. For her entire career she’s been deeply committed to equal opportunity and upward mobility.

Some worry she’s been too compromised by big money – that the circle of wealthy donors she and her husband have cultivated over the years has dulled her sensitivity to the struggling middle class and poor.

But it’s wrong to assume great wealth, or even a social circle of the wealthy, is incompatible with a deep commitment to reform – as Teddy Roosevelt and his fifth-cousin Franklin clearly demonstrated.



The more relevant concern is her willingness to fight.



more:
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/robert_reich_hillarys_values_arent_the_problem_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[msanthrope]

1. A well-written piece. I think HRC will fight for us. nt

[JDPriestly]

8. I don't think she will fight so as to win.

I think she will get angry, but I don't think she will fight to win.

I just don't trust her.

It is a well written piece. I wonder how Robert Reich met Hillary at the age of 19. That would be an interesting story, I bet.

[hrmjustin]

32. Give her a chance.

[Hekate]

38. At age 19, Hillary was his classmate at Dartmouth & Yale. Google is such a friend to the curious...

While at Dartmouth, Reich is reported to have gone on a date with Hillary Rodham, the future Hillary Clinton, then an undergraduate at Wellesley College. While a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Reich first met Bill Clinton, also a Rhodes Scholar ..... At Yale, he was classmates with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Michael Medved and Richard Blumenthal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

[JDPriestly]

40. Thanks.

[BreakfastClub]

56. Championing Hillary Clinton seems like an exercise in futility around here.

Of course she would fight for us, but I doubt she'll be given the chance. The misogyny in our culture far outpaces any other bigotry problems we face.

I have no doubt that Hillary is more liberal than Obama on most issues. Obama is a very moderate president and doesn't like to make waves. Hillary LOVES to make waves. For instance, she has been pushing health care reform for over 20 years, long before it was a glimmer in Obama's eye.

Hillary was prophetic in the health care debate too. She said that Obama would lose the public option and that without mandatory sign-ups the health care reform would suffer. Liberals who supported Obama fought ferociously against the mandatory sign-ups in the primary, which is patently ridiculous when you think about it. Mandatory sign-ups is a very progressive notion, after all. She also said that under Obama's health care plan, republicans would whittle away at the reforms and leave us with watered down, weak health care reform. Lo and behold, he immediately changed his mind about mandatory participation as soon as he took office, and he lost the public option. Not only that, republican-led states do NOT have expanded Medicaid because Obama capitulated fast and frequently. It can't get any clearer than that. He wasn't ready for the fight he took on. Hillary has been ready for two decades.

And let's not forget how Obama was going to work with republicans and have a "post partisan" presidency. What a joke. Hillary tried to tell people that republicans will NOT WORK WITH DEMOCRATS. Hillary was called divisive, but that wasn't true. She was and is willing to fight, and Obama wasn't and didn't.

[rury]

68. I have no doubt that President Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

EOM

[rury]

72. Absolute nonsense.

Where do I begin to unpack and destroy this post????????
Well, for starters more than 20 years ago, Barack Obama was in his late 20s and early 30s, and except for an article which appeared in the New York Times when he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, had not achieved national prominence. So it is a mystery wrapped inside of a riddle wrapped inside of an enigma how you have determined what was a "glimmer in his eye." Secondly Hillary is 14 years Obama's senior and naturally therefore got an earlier start in public life than he did, so if she is any kind of Democrat at all she had BETTER have been thinking about health care reform before he was. And she might have "pushed" for health care reform, but "Hillarycare" the concept for reform she and her husband came up with when SHE was first lady and was in charge of it DIED IN COMMITTE IN CONGRESS. Meanwhile, President Obama who you so nonsensically declare was "unwilling to fight" got health care reform through Congress and it is helping people while bringing costs down AND creating jobs. He actually won the fight that Hillary was supposed to have been "ready for for two decades." And then most astonishingly you say "republican-led states do NOT have expanded Medicaid because Obama capitulated fast and frequently." You need to pay much closer attention to current events because the Republican-led states have refused to expand Medicaid because they despise President Obama and stubbornly and cruelly refuse to go along with anything he proposes. That has been going since he took office in 2009!!!!!!!!Where on earth have you been? Are you completely new to politics?
And then just as astonishingly, you ridicule President Obama for reaching out to Republikkkans and trying to have a post-partisan presidency. You claim that Hillary said previously that Republikkkans will not work with Democrats. Really???? Just recently she said she wanted to make the same bipartisan effort by "bringing red and blue America together in a warm purple space!" In case you don't know it red=Republikkkan and blue=Democrat. Mix red and blue together and you get purple. So do you think Hillary's outreach is a joke, too? You're welcome for the history/political science lesson.

[MineralMan]

2. The line-up of strong supporters is starting to form.

Will we listen to them? Will we pay attention to what they say?

I hope so. We've been listening to detractors from both ends of the political spectrum far too long. It's time for a change.

Thanks for posting this. K&R

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. I have heard over and over and over how Hillary isnt a liberal. I am guilty of it too

Her vote to ALLOW bush to go to war, not a vote for war, was not a mistake in the true sense, it was a cop out, but I expected that from her and the others who did it.

I wont forgive them for that but so what, it is time to move on.

Maybe Hillary is far more liberal than we think, surely she is more liberal than Obama according to the stats.


When i say so what, I dont mean what some will accuse me of.

I personally , my wife and I, suffered because of that war, wont explain why, doesnt matter, I knew it was a lie from the get go.

But I cant use that as a reason to disqualify anyone or nobody would be left

[JDPriestly]

30. I like your Bernie signature line.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. Just heard Christie is proposing taking social security away from you until you are much

older...

Hmm, differences between ANY republican and ANY democrat.

[A Simple Game]

61. I don't know, why don't we ask the guy that offered to put Social Security on the table?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/12/us-usa-fiscal-social-idUSBRE93A19320130412

[RobinA]

87. I Believe That

Hillary is quite liberal when home in her house at night. Far more liberal than Obama ever was. However, she is pragmatic and compromised. Which she probably feels she has to be to be successful in our current system. That's a whole nother issue. She has not and will not govern as a liberal, because she has cast her lot with pragmatism rather than ideology. Hearing Robert Reich talk like this brings to mind the the Kathy Bates character in Primary Colors.

[madokie]

49. After all Hillary tried to do something about the healthcare mess

when she was first Lady.

[MineralMan]

51. Yes, she did.

I remember that very well.

[duhneece]

55. That remains huge for me

She was so vilified, so demonized after that. Far too uppity...and I love her for that.

[rury]

73. President Obama SUCCEEDED where Bill/Hillary TRIED AND FAILED.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (AKA ObamACAre) is the law of the land and is working very well. It is bringing down healthcare costs, insuring people who were previously uninsured, either because they could not afford coverage or had a pre-existing condition AND creating jobs.
Meanwhile, when Bill Clinton was president, he put Hillary in charge of health care reform. "Hillarycare" DIED IN COMMITTEE in Congress. President Obama got Obamacare THROUGH Congress.

[leftynyc]

77. And you blame Hillary for that?

I think that's thoroughly dishonest.

[rury]

82. I am pointing out that she failed where President Obama succeeded. Read the post.

And it does not matter one whit to me what you consider "thoroughly dishonest."

[leftynyc]

83. Comparing a first lady

and what she can get passed (which would be nothing) versus a President isn't dishonest? Whatever.

[rury]

84. Regardless of what her title was at the time, she was a major

player in crafting the legislation that FAILED TO GET OUT OF COMMITTEE. Since SHE likes to point to her time as first lady as part of the background and experience that qualifies her to be president, what she did in that role deserves to be considered.
When he was first elected president, Bill Clinton famously told the American people that "you get two for one" referring to the clout and influence Hillary would have in his administration." Then he officially APPOINTED her to the role of putting together his proposed health care package which went nowhere in Congress because it DIED IN COMMITTEE.
So the comparison is not dishonest, regardless of your pro-Hillary opinion.
Whatever.

[leftynyc]

86. I think it's nonsense

and I find smilies thoroughly unconvincing.

[zipplewrath]

85. No, it's not

It is not bringing down health care costs. Health care costs are still rising. At best they are currently rising at a slower rate than in previous periods. It isn't clear how much of that is due to the recent economic down turn however.

[rury]

89. If costs are rising slower than they were that is

equals a DECREASE IN COSTS.
What's wrong, you don't want to give President Obama credit because he succeeded where Bill and Hillary failed???

[Art_from_Ark]

90. I'm trying to wrap my head around this logic

If I paid $100 for a visit to the doctor 2 years ago, $150 for the same visit last year, and $170 this year, that means that there is a decrease in my costs?

[zipplewrath]

91. No, it's not

That's a decrease in the rate of inflation. As long as the rate of inflation of health care costs exceeds the general rate of inflation, not to mention the rate of wage growth, the costs of health care will continue to rise. Currently, the inflation rate of health care costs is whole integer multiples of the current rate of inflation. And this in an environment where we pay whole integer multiples of what many of our economic competitors pay for the same services.

I'm not sure why people who are supportive of the ACA, who claim it does so much, have to also claim things that it does not do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I completely truat Robert Reich

That he:

1) Has known Hillary that long and well and

2) Completely trusts her core values...

...matters and means a great deal to me. It would be foolish to not take in this data and testimony about Hillary Clinton, regardless whether one believes she is the right Democrat to be our presidential candidate in 2016 for any number ofr potentially valid reasons..

[JDPriestly]

9. But where does she stand on the issues?

And will she fight?

I'm glad to see that Robert Reich also questions her ability and willingness to fight.

He has known her since she was 19. If he questions this about her, then I think my instincts are right in doubting her willingness and ability to fight.

[pnwmom]

16. He isn't doubting or questioning it -- he says this is a defining moment for her.

And that's true. She had an excellent progressive record as a Senator from a blue state. She has to hold on to those ideals and positions as she transitions to the national stage.

[JDPriestly]

29. So, where does she stand on the TPP?

On ISIS? War or just humanitarian aid?

On H1-B visas?

On the cost of pre-school education?

On charter schools?

On school testing?

On college costs?

On student loan interest?

On the Fed?

Who will she appoint to economic posts?

Will she favor breaking up the big banks?

Will she strictly enforce regulations on the financial sector?

I hope you have seen the post comparing the list of Hillary's donors since 1989 with those of Bernie Sanders since that time.

Whose side is Hillary really on? Even the Republicans are pretending to side with working people this election. I want more than words. I want to see who Hillary hangs out with.

We cannot afford to let the disparity in wealth and opportunity in our country get any more out of hand. It is absolutely deplorable at this point.

[pnwmom]

33. I worry that Obama is twisting her arm on the TPP in order to get his endorsement.

A lukewarm endorsement from him could certainly hobble her campaign.

But on the other issues she has a record. She was one of the most liberal in the Senate when she was there.

www.ontheissues.org

[JDPriestly]

36. She was the Sec. of State when the TPP was being negotiated.

That suggests to me that she did not need much of a nudge from Obama. But I don't know.

[pnwmom]

37. That suggests to me that she had to support whatever her boss wanted.

So it's hard to know what her position would be on her own.

[JDPriestly]

41. No. She directed the negotiation of the treaty.

She was in charge. What is in that treaty is her responsibility.

[pnwmom]

43. That doesn't mean Obama gave her a totally free hand. The buck stopped with Obama. n/t

[JDPriestly]

44. She would lose credibility if she directed the negotiators

of the treaty and then turned around and rejected the treaty. She probably cannot do that.

She is stuck with the treaty. It's her baby whether she likes it or not. That's because she was in charge at the State Department when negotiations were taking place.

If we don't like the TPP, we should not be supporting Hillary. She and Obama are both responsible for it.

[pnwmom]

45. The negotiations didn't stop when she left office. They're been ongoing. n/t

[JEB]

59. She could tell us (the voters). eom

[pnwmom]

60. Yes, she could. But suppose she opposes it.

And she comes out against it. How will Obama react to that? Will she lose whatever support she'd have had from him?

He might have her over a barrel. I don't see how she could win the Presidency without his enthusiastic support.

[JEB]

62. So us peon voters can suck it and guess

via Robert Reich or a myriad others offering their opinions.

[pnwmom]

64. I don't like what I've heard about the agreement, and I'm sorry Obama is pushing it.

I hope he's listening to Elizabeth Warren and others.

[JEB]

65. I believe it is a bad agreement

for everyday Americans.

[sabrina 1]

47. If your arm can be twisted on something as important as that, then Reich is right to question

her willingness to fight.

[Hekate]

35. I googled "Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign position papers" and got 2,700,000 results

Go for it!

[JDPriestly]

39. Here it is:

As secretary of State, she (Hillary) was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

Just say no to Hillary is my motto.

[madokie]

50. Correct me if I'm wrong but

Hillary hasn't a thing to do with this now and hasn't for a while.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Obviously fair, timely, and important questions

But given the magnitude of the entrenched forces we are up against, regarding any presidential candidate who doesn't enter into this with their heart/values in the right place, it becomes flat out game over that they won't fight for true progressive social change.

Reich's comments have a glass half empty, glass half full quality about them. Either way it's a half glass and I actually find that encouraging, especially since he isn't categorically calling her out as being unwilling to fight, which would move it toward more full if she did.

I have always accepted Hillary as a Center Left Democrat, the question for me is always just how centrist a center leftist is she? I have never taken it for granted that she would be anything more than a mere nudge left of dead center if ever elected President, but even that would obviously be light years better than any Republican holding that office. Most centrist Democrats I know of really don't have their heart and values in what I would call the right place. They are not Republicans because they are 1) not batshit crazies and 2) aware of the fact that from time to time they have to deliver something of value to the Democratic coalition voter base that they count on for votes. Based on that they usually qualify as "the lesser evil" choice.

What Reich wrote about Hillary is potentially at least one step up from that. I have given her credit in the past for not wimping out in confronting crazies in the Republican Party - she has shown the type of fight in that regard that was missing from much of Obama's first term. She is also bright and competent which counts for me as well because even someone with good intentions can screw something up and make it worse if they aren't at least bright and competent. Factor in Reich's testimonial on her positive personal values on top of that and there becomes some potential for some upside with Hillary. The question remains, and it is key, does Hillary have it in her to take on not just politicians from the other side, but also the powers behind our entrenched economic status quo?

[rury]

74. There was plenty of fight in Obama's first term.

And he accomplished quite a bit until the 2010 midterms when Democrats did not vote in large enough numbers to keep the Republikkkans from gaining a majority in Congress.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. and my instincts tell me...

she HAS been fighting Republicans since she was First Lady.....they've thrown every punch they have....even the notorious telegraphed Bengazi Haymakeri That woman has a jaw of steel!

In fact they have thrown all the mud they could find......thrown everything but the kitchen sink at her....and she is STILL standing. Soooo don't try to get it past me that she is not a "fighter" . She does anything but run from a fight against the Republicans!

[PatrickforO]

4. Hillary IS the strongest Dem candidate.

I've worried she's a little too Third Way, but let's all hope her heart is more in line with FDR's. Wouldn't that be great?

[JDPriestly]

34. At this point it would be wishful thinking.

She is liberal on the old issues. But where does she stand on the many new ones like TPP and H1-B visas and the many, many other issues on which she has taken no stand. She has drawn her support from major firms in finance, banking and law.

Bernie Sanders draws his major support from unions and working people. I can easily believe that Bernie's heart is in the right place and that he will try to do the right things for his supporters.

But if Hillary does the same, that is the right things for her supporters, she will be an agent of corporations, banks, the financial sector and law firms that represent corporations.

It's kind of hard for me to believe that she, no matter what she says, will cross the line and represent ordinary working people.

Theodore Roosevelt was rich and became an advocate for clean government and to some extent for fairly liberal causes. He enforced anti-trust law, etc. But he went through a conversion based on experience with poverty as police commissioner of New York City. And there was a huge populist movement in the years prior to his election. He believed mostly in fairness.

I do not see Hillary following that path.

[sabrina 1]

48. Who are the other candidates?

[closeupready]

5. She seems more eager to fight liberals than Republicans, of whom

she's said most recently that she wants to 'reach across the aisle' and talks of 'bipartisanship', which is a euphemistic way of saying she's going to compromise what our aims are in order to give Republicans what they want.

I'd like to be wrong.

[MissDeeds]

6. I agree n/t

[Enthusiast]

13. That is my fear also.

I'd love to be wrong.

[Phlem]

14. yep.

[uberblonde]

19. What else is she supposed to say...

When she's running in a general election?

And as long as some Dems are willing to tear her down to other Dems (doing the GOP's work for them), it will suppress enthusiasm, lower turnout, we'll get a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, and you will have helped create the situation in which she HAS to compromise with Republicans.

You really don't get this?

[closeupready]

24. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders seem to have it down pat.

Maybe they can help her at least get her sounding like a fighter.

And don't do this "you really don't get this?" stuff with me, please. Not going to snark with you.

[rury]

75. Yep.

it will suppress enthusiasm, lower turnout, we'll get a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, and you will have helped create the situation in which she HAS to compromise with Republicans.

That is exactly what happened to President Obama. Democrats did not turn out in 2010. We lost the house and he HAD to compromise and could vilified on DU for it. Same thing happened in 2014 and we lost the Senate too.

[asjr]

22. When I see "reach across the aisle" I hope

that means a fist in the face of McConnell, and with what ever strength she has left give it to Graham and that ass from Arizona.

[hifiguy]

23. Yep. Terrifying words.

She clearly has far more problems with the liberal base of her own ostensible party tnan with the policies and people who are destroying the country. Count me extremely doubtful.

You are not wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Take HRC out of the question

It's always been my opinion to suggest a person has to be a member of a group to empathize with its members is silly.

[Moostache]

10. I do not want any reaching across the aisle...

UNLESS its to grab Boehner and the rest of the House GOP crazies by the neck to secure them for an hour of direct kicks to the groin.

I want a President to actually BUILD off the moves of the Obama administration to EXPAND the social safety net, DECREASE the imperial armed forces commitments and seriously address fundamental flaws in our republic, staring with VOTING and CIVIL RIGHTS but not ending there by any means.

I want a president who wants no part of triangulation unless that triangle includes kicking them in the head and ass as well as the groin.

The GOP fundies and their ultra wealthy billionaire benefactors are an abominable marriage of convenience and its well past time to confront them viscerally and head up instead of theroetically and tangentially focused.

I want to be wrong about HRC. I want her to PROVE it to me in the primary campaigns...but without a legitimate primary contest ahead, I fear the worst...

[closeupready]

11. That 3rd paragraph gave me a good chuckle, thanks.

[erronis]

12. 1+1000 You couldn't have said it better. A Dem President who will fight for what s/he wants!

(And can reasonably hope to get.) Sorry to add that part.

[Hoppy]

15. I know where her heart is, too. Wall Street.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I believe Reich knows her better than you do.

Since I know more about him than I do about you on top of that, and also like where he is usually coming from, I take his observation at face value. I do agree with your concern though in regards to whether she is willing to take Wall Street on.

[whatchamacallit]

20. Whether her heart is in the right place or not

Her record, associations, and backers are a crystal ball on her presidency.

[abelenkpe]

21. more from article:

"But if Hillary Clinton is to get the mandate she needs for America to get back on track, she will have to be clear with the American people about what is happening and why – and what must be done.

For example, she will need to admit that Wall Street is still running the economy, and still out of control.

So we must resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act and bust up the biggest banks, so millions of Americans don’t ever again lose their homes, jobs, and savings because of Wall Street’s excesses.

Also: Increase taxes on the rich in order to finance the investments in schools and infrastructure the nation desperately needs.

Strengthen unions so working Americans have the bargaining power to get a fair share of the gains from economic growth.

Limit the deductibility of executive pay, and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Oppose trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership designed to protect corporate property but not American jobs.

And nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse “Citizens United.” "



http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/robert_reich_hillarys_values_arent_the_problem_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[silvershadow]

25. Oh.

that may be, but she still is no Bernie Sanders.

[ladjf]

27. She might have found her VP choice. nt

[zentrum]

28. Don't believe it.

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's look at the Clinton record.

Bill Clinton hurt the Welfare program, when 70% of the recipients were children..

He overturned Glass Steagull, which had been the law since 1933, setting the stage for the bank/mortgage disaster of 2008.

NAFTA.

He allowed media conglomeration until, for the first time, there were only 5 major media companies.

He was a founding member of the DLC. In other words, he is responsible for the transformation of the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. And in response, the Republican Party became the Bagger Party. By the 90's the Democratic Party and Republican Party were at donation parity from the corporate elite.

I know she is not Bill. (She lacks his charm.) But she was born into a Republican family and that seems where her deepest instincts lie.

She has almost no Senate accomplishments from her years there. She screwed up Health Care reform which she was in charge of.

She threw Obama under the bus in the worst way possible in 2008 when she was asked if he was Muslim. She hesitated and then demurred—" I have no way of knowing". That's not the kind of answer I expect from a Liberal who should have exposed the ugly intent of that question.

Unlike FDR she wasn't born into wealth. She gained her wealth by dealing and fighting. She had to have hunger and ambition to get it. So the question of whether one can be around the rich and still be good is moot.

I'll vote for her over the Clown Car any day of the week, but I fear deeply for the Democratic Party and its values under her watch.

But, yeah, she'll speak the rhetoric we need to hear about women, like any good old style Republican would.

The Dems ought to be able to do better. The Party has been cratered from within. FDR would be amazed and saddened at the way the Party is now.

[840high]

54. Thanks.

[sadoldgirl]

42. R. Reich is a moderate democrat.

It is interesting to read his observations on HCR in Salon.

Perhaps he tries to stifle the left opposition to her with
these statements, after all this has been trumpeted
all over the media.

I remain a sceptic in spite of his obvious support for her.

[joshcryer]

46. This is incredible, wow.

Easiest nomination in history?

[AtomicKitten]

53. Rather disingenuous on the heels of his recent series of articles.

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:55 PM - Edit history (2)

She is the antithesis of the economic justice he's been writing about. Not surprised he's doing her a solid though. He served as Labor Secretary in the Clinton Admin and they keep score.

Edited for typos (derp)

[zentrum]

57. Absolutely agree.

Don't know why he did this.

I guess he wants a spot in her administration just like he had with Bill. But I doubt she'll give it to him. She's to the right of Bill.

[Skinner]

58. Maybe because he believes it.

[AtomicKitten]

71. or maybe its election quid pro quo

[zentrum]

76. Exactly.

He gives her cover with us, the economic progressives of the Democratic Party and in return she'll put him back in the cabinet…..where he actually hopes to influence her to put her money where you election rhetoric is.

I think that is his plan. But she won't bring him along with her, I don't think.

[Orsino]

63. If he willingness to fight is in question, so is "where her heart is."

That would be how we identify her real values.

[SunSeeker]

66. K & R

[DeSwiss]

67. Thanks Bobby.

- But I never take advice I didn't ask for. And I always vote with my heart. That way I have no moral misgivings about what I've done or whom I've supported.

And I won't support warmongers. Ever.

[leftynyc]

78. I assume you voted for Pres Obama

and Biden as VP although he also vote for the war. Did you not vote for Senator Kerry in 2004? So don't say ever, that's being dishonest.

[ScreamingMeemie]

69. I have known my son since the moment he first kicked my ribcage...

I know where his heart is. I still don't expect you to write him in for president.

[hughee99]

79. I have no doubt about where her heart is either

And I don't doubt her deep commitment to upward mobility, but I'm sure I'll vote for her anyway if she gets the nomination.

[chapdrum]

80. Dr. Reich: please spare us

[FiveGoodMen]

81. Is this the same heart that has driven her decision-making process for the last 15 years or so?

Was that good heart the reason she voted to invade Iraq?

Was it the reason she dog-whistled to 'good, hard-working WHITE' people during the 2008 campaign?

[NM_Birder]

88. me too.

When I'm loading my bags of cash for deposit, .......throwing loose change at the panhandlers proves I understand their plight.