Hillary Clinton destroys Hobby Lobby decision to cheers, applause

[Triana]

Edit: The comments are real - uhh, interesting, as you might expect. Blazingly ignorant, most of them. Too sad to even be amusing.

[freshwest]

1. No trouble expressing herself. Countries where girls aren't issued birth certificates - chilling.

Her analysis is good and her passion is appealing.

[Triana]

2. Yea the bit about countries where girls aren't even issued birth certificates...

...creeped me out. I know women and girls are devalued/non-valued the world over but hearing it like that really does drive home how little women and girls' lives are worth in too many places. Jeeeze.

[freshwest]

3. And she knows more than that, I'm sure. Her analysis of what that kind of misogyny leads to...

Also chilling. Smarter than some think she is, that's for sure.

[Historic NY]

6. Exactly...

she has championed women's rights internationally and that scares people.

[freshwest]

7. It encourages me. One can be defined by their enemies. And hers are troglodytes.

Worse, if possible, than those going after PBO. The fierce enmity from theocrats and conservatives says a lot about who PBO and HRC REALLY are. I am relieved to hear she is on the ball there.

[merrily]

33. Doesn't scare this woman in the least.

Yet, I am no fan of Hillary.

Also no fan of the anointing.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. I don't trust this woman. She pals around with Christian Dominionist, MENTOR, and "close friend,"

pastor of THE FAMILY/THE FELLOWSHIP, a shadowy extreme rightwing Cult masquerading as a "Church," in Washington DC. (Google "Frathouse For Jesus&quot ; in fact, Hillary has associated with this spooky international organization since first arriving in Washington DC over 20 years ago. Strong rumor has it that they helped author Uganda's notorious genocide KILL THE GAYS bill in 2009.

All my opinion.

[LuvLoogie]

5. Silly ass comment.

And that's a fact.

[merrily]

14. Nothing silly about facts. Denial is not your friend.

Google is possibly your friend, though. Denial? Definitely not.

[Beacool]

23. She attended Bible studies and prayer meetings.

She is NOT a member of The Family.

[merrily]

25. IOW, she was connected to The Family. Thanks, I know.

What is your point?

That was not the only way she could attend Bible studies and prayer meetings in DC. Any legit bible study and/or praryer group would have been thrilled to have her (and her Secret Service protectors, too).

Instead, with all options available to her, she CHOSE to study the Bible and attend prayer meetings with The Family, though. Please tell me you are not trying to imply that is without meaning.

I would take Bible study, but I sure as hell wouldn't take Bible study with the Family, not with their interpretations of the Bible and their warped idea of the Bible and religion vis a vis politics.

For one thing, they teach that certain people are called by God to lead (aka politicians who share the beliefs of The Family) and the laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to those "called" leaders. Hence all the comparisons to King David, most beloved of God, according to the Bible, ancestor of Jesus, who sought to murder a man so he could screw the decedent's wife (Bathsheba) Yet, he remained beloved of God.

No, I wouldn't study the Bible with them, not unless I were researching for an expose of The Family.

So, what is your point anyway? Not technically a member, is that your point? I never said she was a member, so you can put that straw man away. Who cares about technicalities, anyway?

Besides, what is "silly ass" about pointing out anyone's connection with The Family? And what is wrong with telling someone denial is not their friend?

Denial is not your friend, either. Neither is spin.

Interesting, too, that it was blkmusclemachine who made the original comment, but you passed that right up and replied to me, but not to him or her.

[Beacool]

28. Spreading B.S. is not your friend either.

She is NOT a member of The Family, no matter how many times some of you push that meme.

Whatever, you are not voting for her anyway.

[navarth]

8. not silly at all.

[Beacool]

22. You keep repeating that like a mantra,

no matter how many times it has been pointed out that she's not a member.

Besides, what does that have to do with the posted video??????

[merrily]

27. Actually, navarth posted that ONCE. Not repetitive and certainly not like a

mantra. It's you who keeps repeating that she was not a member, as though that even matters.

No one you've responded to said she was a member, though. Blkmusclemachine said she was friends with pastor of the organization, adding

in fact, Hillary has associated with this spooky international organization since first arriving in Washington DC over 20 years ago.

You yourself confirm that she was indeed associated with them, not that confirmation was necessary.

Navarth and I simply said there was nothing silly about facts. Do you disagree?


Besides, what does that have to do with the posted video??????

Blkmusclemachine's post implies his post had to do with not trusting her speeches. (Her speech on the Iraq War, for example?) Navarth and I simply responded to LuvLoogie's silly ass comment, whose relevance to the video you don't seem to have any problem at all with.

[Beacool]

32. Navarth has written that same comment over and over in various threads.

[merrily]

34. Supporting facts in many threads? Oooo, let's stop that nonsense!

[Beacool]

37. No, repetitively bringing up stuff that have zero to do with the OP is silly.

No matter how many times someone posts it.

[lovemydog]

9. K&R

She's a strong advocate for women's civil rights. Excellent argument about the slippery slope. This Hobby Lobby decision is indeed on the spectrum of controlling women's personal choices. And their bodies. And who gets to make decisions about them. I believe it should solely be the woman's choice.

[JDPriestly]

10. Hillary is a strong advocate for women's civil rights, but the fact remains that Bill Clinton

signed RIFRA. Did he fail to foresee the harm that bill could do just as Hillary failed to see the harm that voting for the bill that permitted Bush to start the Iraq WAr? Isn't our First Amendment clear enough to protect religious freedom?

Hillary is strong on women's rights, but is that enough?

I just don't have confidence in her ability to make good decisions. And Bill Clinton signed so many bad bills: and made so many questionable appointments. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, the bill that ended the limits on the numbers of telecommunications outlets a single company could own and control, NAFTA and RIFRA, then re-appointing Greenspan to the Fed, appointing Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. The negatives outweigh the positives for me.

But Hillary is great on women's issues. And I do not object to her religion.

I would like to comment on something she said about the Hobby Lobby decision. I want to do more research on some of the text of it, but I noticed that the Court just sort of assumed that Hobby Lobby is "sincere" in its religious views.

I am shocked that any judge in any court would even consider opining on the sincerity of the religious beliefs of a party in a case before it. How can "sincerity" in religious beliefs be a factor or an element that a court determines, supposes, or accepts as a given. Did some lower court determine that Hobby Lobby (a business, good heavens) was "sincere"? Wasn't that an issue of fact? Was it an opinion? How did any court decide the "sincerity" of beliefs of any party before it? Did an expert witness decide that? That seems to have been an important assumption in the opinion.

[lovemydog]

11. Those are all excellent points, JDPriestly

If I had my way we'd have Elizabeth Warren as President and a Congress full of people to her left, who truly believe in education, making the rich pay their fair share (double or triple what they pay now) and universal health care.

I don't hold Hillary to what Bill did as President. I had a major problem on her vote to approve of Bush going ahead with the Iraq War. At that time I wrote my Congress persons, and two of the three voted against that legislation. So I've always found her rationale (essentially that she wasn't voting for the war, she was just authorizing Bush to proceed) as disingenuous at best. I do feel that she would not have prosecuted that war if she had been President.

Regarding the 'sincerity' of Hobby Lobby, that was a reaction I had too. I think it's about the money. If it weren't about the money, they wouldn't be getting all their supplies from China, which has forced abortions.

I feel it's well past time we have a woman President. I'd prefer that it be Warren. If it's Hillary versus a republican I'll vote for Hillary. Without a strong Congress though (which the cynic in me says we probably won't get) it will be a lot more incremental progress rather that the bold & radical change of direction that I prefer.

[JDPriestly]

12. I live in California. I will vote for all other Democrats, but at least now I do not think I

ill vote for Hillary. California is one of the bluest states in the nation. If Hillary is our candidate and if her election in California is so close that my vote would make a difference, she would lose nationally whether I vote for her or not.

I have always, always voted for Democrats for president when I lived in this country (and I am 71 so I voted for a lot of Democratic presidential candidates). I think it would be very sad if we nominate Hillary Clinton. I think we need Elizabeth Warren to run for president and to pick as her running mate someone whose strength is foreign policy.

We need a president who understands what is wrong economically in our country and who can lead us toward correcting our economic course. I believe that Elizabeth Warren may be our last hope for saving our very creative capitalist system. She believes in regulation, but not in government management of companies or over-management of the economy.

The disparity in incomes in our country is too great. I think that Hillary and Bill Clinton recognize that fact, but I do not think that either of them really understands why our economic disparity is so great. I do not think that Hillary Clinton can distance herself from her friends who represent very powerful interests that are addicted to the profits they think they are making from our current economic disparity.

Of course, our economic disparity will come back to bite those whose narrow-minded thinking on economic matters does not permit them to understand the interconnectedness and interdependency of all of us in the American economy. But I do not think that Hillary Clinton will be able to offend her close friends and neighbors (and constituents when she was in the Senate) on Wall Street and the banks and big business to advocate for and push what we need to get our country back on the right track.

Hillary was Secretary of State during part of the time that the TPP and the Keystone Pipeline deals were in development. That is not a good sign.

[Beacool]

24. Elizabeth Warren is a one issue politician with minimal political experience

who barely won her Senate seat in a very blue state. What makes some of you think that she could win a general election?

Unlike some of you who keep harping on Hillary, I do like Liz Warren, but I think that she is where she needs to be. She may one day be a great Fed Chairman or Secretary of the Treasury, but there's a lot more to running a country like this one than being against Wall Street.

Besides, did it ever occur to those of you who keep pushing for her to run that she might just not be interested in being president? It's a thankless job and not every politician wants it.

[JDPriestly]

45. The country needs her. She can appoint competent people for State and other positions.

She is very strong on labor issues.

The primary issue in this country, the issue from which all other issues flow, is economic disparity. Every other issue is related to that issue. And the reason we have economic disparity is that our tax system favors wealth and our social system disfavors the poor.

I worked for a homeless project for about 8 years and have dealt professionally with other issues including issues related to family and children. The economic problems of our country are central to every other problem we have -- even transportation and our involvement in oil-producing countries. Every problem goes back to the soul-destroying economic injustice in our country.

We can have capitalism, the creativity of capitalism and still have a fair economy. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only responsible voices focusing on this core issue.

Hillary is all over the place. She is great on women's issues, but as I have so often pointed out, the Bill Clinton legacy has unfortunately worked out so that the mistakes he made have overshadowed the good he did. I won't list his many mistakes. Hillary will hear about them over and over during the campaign if she runs. She certainly did not handle the question about RIFRA very well. That law should have been overturned by the Supreme Court. It is fraught with problems. Anyway we will never agree on this. I really think Hillary should leave well enough alone and not drag Bill Clinton's legacy through the mud by running.

Let's just talk about NAFTA and its effects on the US economy.

One million American jobs lost to NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about pne million net jobs in the United States by 2004. . . . EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010. . . . Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA
took effect. . . . Obviously, not all of these lost U.S. manufacturing jobs – one out of every four of our manufacturing jobs – is due to NAFTA. The United States entered the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China joined WTO in 2000 and the U.S. trade deficit with China soared thereafter. However, at the same time, given the methodology employed, it is
also likely that the EPI estimates do not capture the full U.S. job loss associated with NAFTA.
Service sector jobs have also been negatively impacted by NAFTA, as closed factories no longer demand services. EPI estimates that one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

We need to have a national discussion about our economy. I don't think Hillary is the person to lead it. She does not have that kind of understanding of the economy. Elizabeth Warren is the person to lead Americans into rethinking how we can make sure that all Americans have the opportunity and incentives to make the contributions to our economy and our society that they are capable of making. We are headed in the wrong direction with regard to those issues. Bill Clinton did not know how to make the changes we needed. I do not trust Hillary to figure it out. Elizabeth Warren has already figured out a lot of it. At least she knows what is wrong.

That's why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I'd rather help a third party candidate if she is running on the Democratic ticket. I think here in Southern California, a vote for Hillary would be a wasted vote. She is too much of a generalist. We need Elizabeth Warren and her expertise right now.

[merrily]

17. Biden also cited that authorization rationale.

Hillary has given several stories in an attempt to justify that vote, including that she didn't bother to read the NIE, she just took Bush's word. None of the several explanations got her off the political hook; and she recently said her vote was mistake.

If my child died or was maimed or lost sanity in that war, I'd vote against her twice, once for the war vote and once for simply calling it a mistake.

That's the trouble with 100 politicians voting on whether to send other people's children to war.

[merrily]

29. Association with The Family is not a religion, though.

I certainly object to that outfit. If that is what you meant by her religion, then we differ on that point.

Excellent point overall, though.

Culture wars can't be enough anymore. They just can't.

[Enthusiast]

13. She will not be an impressive candidate for president.

Her correct position on women's issues will hardly overcome her incorrect positions on financial deregulation and trade deals.

[merrily]

15. However, if the DNC succeeds in avoiding a real primary,

those things may never come out. If she is the uncontested nominee, or if a primary is mostly just to placate the parts ofo the base that resist a coronation, she will receive no scrutiny about her economic policies. Her Republican counterpart surely won't challenge her on that basis.

[Enthusiast]

16. Hillary must be questioned about her economic policies.

The nation cannot continue this march to the right. Unless we find Fascism appealing.

[merrily]

18. I agree. Sadly, it's not up to you or me.

"If Hillary runs, she'll clear the field."

What do you suppose was the point of everyone on MSNBC and all the Democratic pundits and strategists and politicians repeating that over and over, starting even before Obama's re-election? And how much encouragement do you suppose a sincere primary challenger will get from anyone, including donors, when the wishes of the Party's PTB and their shills (including those posting on this board) are so evident?

Follow the money.

[navarth]

20. "Follow the money"

Indeed, indeed.

[Beacool]

26. She's impressive enough for the vast majority of Democrats.

[merrily]

31. Who would be impressed with anyone the DNC designated.

[Beacool]

35. Nope, they would not.

Hillary IS impressive, some of our past nominees have not been.

[merrily]

36. She is not a nominee. A designee, maybe.

And whether or not she is impressive was not the point. The point is, a majority of Democrats would support anyone if the DNC were pushing them as hard as it has been pushing Hillary for two years.

ETA: Actually, make that "as hard as it has pushing Hillary OVERTLY for two years. Who knows how early this cake was actually baked.

[Beacool]

39. Dismissive much, aren't you?

Hillary has become an icon of international stature, she's not just "anyone". If she were a run of the mill politician, the DNC and the media would not be pushing that person so early in the process. Why is it so hard to understand for some of you that there are millions of people who want Hillary to run and win? Whether she will run or not, that's an open question that only she can answer.

[merrily]

41. Saying she is not a nominee yet is dismissive? It's fact.

Choosing the nominee is supposed to be up to voters in a democratic Democratic primary, not to the DNC.

Isn't that obvious?

Why is it so hard to understand for some of you that there are millions of people who want Hillary to run and win?

Then why have they been trying to so hard to make sure no one challenges her seriously in a primary? If so many millions of Democrats want her as the nominee, why two years and counting of attempts at self-fulfilling prophesies and brainwashing.

BTW, do you ever argue serious issues, as opposed to propaganda and calling people who don't share your Hillary love names?

[Beacool]

42. There will be a primary, there always is.

The DNC is only recognizing her popularity. It's also their hope that she will run, as she's seen as the strongest candidate to win against the Republicans.

[KurtNYC]

19. Single payer is the answer.

[stonecutter357]

21. K&R

[Beacool]

30. I see that the usual mudslingers have attempted to hijack your thread.

Hillary is great in this video.....but....but.....

They'll never give her a break. So, as I have said in the past, I don't care about their opinion.
They are not going to vote for her, so why bother?

She doesn't pass their purity test and that to them is more important than worrying about the larger picture, like SCOTUS for example.

[merrily]

38. My, what a sophisticated rebuttal, calling people who don't

share your worship of Hillary mudslingers and using the tired "purity test" meme that was never true to begin with and does not become more true by endless repetition.

She doesn't pass their purity test and that to them is more important than worrying about the larger picture, like SCOTUS for example.

Again, she is not the nominee yet. The designee, maybe, but not the nominee. I see no reason to assume that she would be better at nominating Justices than another Democrat, not even identified as yet, would be.

Besides, that's only a variant of "Vote Hillary. She's not a regisgtered Republican."

Talk about damning with faint praise.

[Beacool]

40. Please, how many people on DU have felt the need to say that they would not vote for her

even if she were the nominee? Why should I care about those people's opinions when that's what they plan to do if she does run and become the nominee?

[hue]

43. Hillary's response in this vid is great. SCOTUS is dead wrong in their ruling on Hobby Lobby.

That SCOTUS gave the power to corporations to make decisions about their womens' employees bodies is really a crime IMHO. Womens' rights are slowly being chipped away and that our own SCOTUS is doing the chipping is frightening. It means women are not given full rights as human beings under our Constitution.

IMHO a Woman's decision regarding Her reproductive choices should be made between Her SO, Family, physician and Her spiritual adviser if She should choose one. The results of the Hobby Lobby decision means someone is making choices about a Woman's body who has NO KNOWLEDGE of the individual. It's a blanket decision that is mandated by the courts for all Women!! This means the Woman employee IS NOT A PERSON or individual.

Props to Hillary for standing up for Women!!

I will vote for Hillary over any Repuke!! I can't say She is perfect but she is def better than any Repuke I've seen!!

[iandhr]

44. But but but

DU tells me every day there is no difference between her and the GOP.