“If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question”

[ram2008]

And there it is...

That's Hillary's response to whether or not she supports Keystone.

Really?

......Really?

I've never seen a quote which so clearly demonstrates everything wrong with Hillary's campaign and her politics-- actually this shows everything that's wrong with politics in America. It would've been better if she just came out and said she's in favor of it. But this non-answer answer is part of a much larger pattern and problem that seems to be all to common for Hillary. Entitlement? Check. Obfuscation? Check.

How can anyone support this type of campaigning? It's INFURIATING to me. No you don't get to wait until you're President to answer real questions... you answer them NOW, while you're running. This quote will haunt her... the ads pretty much write themselves.

[RobertEarl]

1. Bernie says:

No to Keystone.

And that we have a moral obligation to our descendants to do whatever it takes to stop polluting the globe.

[Go Vols]

173. +1

[billhicks76]

230. She's A Pompous, Elitist Conservative

I will never vote for a Republican who masquerades as a Democrat. That is more dangerous than an actual Republican because it fools people into neutering their opposition to bad policies, lies and scams. We should choose fighting in the streets over electing her. Never elect a liar. Period.

[GoneFishin]

250. "a Republican who masquerades as a Democrat ... fools people into neutering their opposition"

So true, but it seems some people can't process this.

Half of the stuff that gets a pass nowadays would evoke protest and condemnation if King George and Darth Cheney were still in office, but is shrugged off or excused because there is a Democrat in the White House.

[billhicks76]

293. Democrats Have Been Foolish Since Clinton

They would rather be in power than change anything.

[TwilightGardener]

2. What's really funny is, she's the far-and-away frontrunner.

Where's the risk in just stating your opinion, from where she's sitting? You might lose a few polling points, but it's not likely you'll be overtaken by your opponents on this one issue. So that tells me she's for Keystone but isn't courageous enough to lose some support over it.

[MADem]

7. Because she'll need surrogates to campaign for her in the general when things get down to the wire.

Pissing off the very popular POTUS (and his spouse) who can GOTV like crazy in some important venues in the run up to first Tuesday in Nov 16 is a VERY bad idea.

[George II]

39. People just don't understand how this works, do they?

[ram2008]

49. Obama will campaign for whoever the democratic nominee is

He has a legacy to uphold. He would not want to have an election loss blamed on him and his legacy jeopardized because he didn't come out to campaign for the nominee. Also Obama would not hold a grudge over a simple policy difference- he's not a Clinton. This is such a lame excuse and thoroughly transparent.

[BainsBane]

50. How would campaigning for Bernie uphold his legacy?

When Bernie is running against Obama's presidency?

[winter is coming]

53. I wouldn't have said that tipping us further into oligarchy is Obama's intended legacy. n/t

[BainsBane]

68. No, what you mean is

failure to uphold the unfettered privilege of the white middle- and upper-middle class.
The US has always been a capitalist state. It has been plagued by deep inequality from its inception, especially during the time periods people here hearken back to, like under FDR. The key difference recently is that the white upper middle and middle class has started to feel a bit of what it's like to live in this country. If any of you cared about inequality, you wouldn't pretend it was recent or Obama's legacy. There is no factual basis for that claim. The difference in the recent economy is that being part of the the white upper-middle class and middle class is no longer the instant ticket to comfort it once was. What could be more unforgivable that that?

If people cared about equality itself rather than the decline of their own class, they would not hearken back to the time of FDR, when the Democratic Party presided over a system of Jim Crow that disenfranchised and kept in poverty a large chunk of the population, when women and LGBT Americans, Asian-Americans, Latinos, and everyone but straight white men were denied basic rights. The rest of us have always been at the bottom, and the white bourgeoisie was perfectly happy with that situation. It is only when they started to feel a pinch did it become a concern. And now, the rest of us are supposed to forsake everything we have worked for in order for that class to regain what they see as their rightful position atop the capitalist world order. Everything must stop for the great and noble struggle of the upper 20 percent vs. the upper 1 percent.

Ordinary workers won’t rise up against ultras because they take it as given that “the rich get richer.”
But the hopes and dreams of today’s educated class are based on the idea that market capitalism is a meritocracy. The unreachable success of the superrich shreds those dreams.
“I’ve seen it in my research,” says pollster Doug Schoen, who counsels Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, among others. “If you look at the lower part of the upper class or the upper part of the upper middle class, there’s a great deal of frustration. These are people who assumed that their hard work and conventional ‘success’ would leave them with no worries. It’s the type of rumbling that could lead to political volatility.”
Lower uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers. At companies they’re mostly executives above the rank of VP but below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even Fortune columnists who earn their living as consultants).
Lower uppers are professionals who by dint of schooling, hard work and luck are living better than 99 percent of the humans who have ever walked the planet. They’re also people who can’t help but notice how many folks with credentials like theirs are living in Gatsby-esque splendor they’ll never enjoy.]
http://business.time.com/2009/02/04/the-revolt-of-the-lower-upper-class-begins/

I have always known that notion of a meritocracy was a lie. It's national mythology. It has never been true for the many. That is the nature of capitalism, not the Obama presidency.

How many of you would be willing to live at the national median so that others don't go without?
You live in a capitalist society and you always have. That was all fine and good until recently. You pretend it's all Obama's fault. If you cared even a little bit about structural equality, you would not pretend it was recent. People would not time and time again discount the rampant inequality that this nation was born from. They would understand their liberty and comfort was born out of the enslavement and subjugation of others. http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/tah/UnderstandingAmericanCitizenship/American%20Paradox.pdf
Yet that is not what you object to. You object to the Obama presidency. That tells me that you aren't even a bit concerned about the rampant poverty that characterized my life growing up or the structural and legal inequality this nation has been based on since its inception.

[beam me up scottie]

71. "I wouldn't have said that tipping us further into oligarchy is Obama's intended legacy. n/t"

That's what was posted and you come back with this:

You live in a capitalist society and you always have. That was all fine and good until recently. You pretend it's all Obama's fault. If you cared even a little bit about structural equality, you would not pretend it was recent. People would not time and time again discount the rampant inequality that this nation was born from. They would understand their liberty and comfort was born out of the enslavement and subjugation of others. Yet that is not what you object to. You object to the Obama presidency. That tells me that you aren't even a bit concerned about the rampant poverty that characterized my life growing up or the structural and legal inequality this nation has been based on since its inception.

That's one hell of an accusation, congratulations, you really outdid yourself this time.

[GoneFishin]

151. I got nearly the same exact response when I said this :

I have had 7 years of smooth talk. Talk is cheap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=478723

[beam me up scottie]

184. I've been on the receiving end of it too.

It's her specialty, completely ignore what a poster says, put words in their mouth, construct straw men, climb onto your soapbox and post a tldr screed blaming the poor poster for everything that's wrong in the world today.

No matter what the subject of the op, it's always about evil white men and those of us who allow y'all to persecute women and poc.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

255. But she posted with great drama and flourish. You have to give her points for that.

I like to imagine the soliloquy being performed on stage, moody lighting, the whole thing. I stopped subjecting myself to her sermons and admonitions some time ago. It dawned on me that the whole thing was a waste of time. So I released myself on my own recognizance.

[beam me up scottie]

290. She did the same thing to me and when I responded I was alerted on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6849797

Some posters cannot tolerate different opinions and try to bully others into silence, so I'm going to call out this kind of nasty personal attack every time I see one.

Eventually they'll get the message.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

291. Now you know you're not permitted to address other posters' points in a thread.

That would be a personal attack, or, what we used to call "a conversation".

Some people live on drama, and they'll be sure to create it if it doesn't already exist.

[winter is coming]

85. That's not even remotely what I said, or meant.

You said, "How would campaigning for Bernie uphold his legacy? When Bernie is running against Obama's presidency?"

I responded, "I wouldn't have said that tipping us further into oligarchy is Obama's intended legacy" because I think Bernie is running against the encroachment of oligarchy, but I don't think that's Obama's intended legacy, nor do I think that Bernie is running against Obama's presidency.

You then jumped from that into some bizarro rant making all sorts of unfounded assumptions.

FWIW, I'd love to be living at the national median. It would be a huge step up from where I am now.

[BainsBane]

91. I apologize for misunderstanding

My rant does not apply to you, but I still believe it valid to a general outlook I have seen expressed far too often.

[JDPriestly]

95. Structual inequality is not recent, but it has worsened.

And that is what people are angry about. You practically admit that in your post.

It used to be that the marginal populations could have some hope to at least get into the middle class. But now the middle class is sinking to the income and lifestyle level of the marginal groups (and those groups are not just defined by race but also by geography, by disability, by education, by many other factors).

Years ago, I asked a political scientists, when will people have enough? When will they start voting for their own interests and a fairer society? She said to me: when the percentage of people who are hurting gets greater and the middle class feels hurt, that's when.

Well, we are there now.

So in a sense your post is very correct. And what that means is that this is the time that we will change and make progress in many areas.

[BainsBane]

100. Worsened?

Only in the sense that the wealthy have gotten richer. Median incomes have flat lined, and many more Americans are closer to being full-citizens.

I see people advancing an agenda for that white middle class. I don't see much concern for the lives of the rest. There is the assumption that we will automatically be uplifted by what is good for them. Why should I believe that? It's never been the case before. I find it all the more alienating when white "progressives" are openly hostile to leftist activism for racial equality--ie. Black Lives Matter. That doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that they are concerned with the majority.

[ram2008]

108. For the record I'm not white

And I'm the OP, so let's stop making this about White vs Black. It's not. It's about the 99% vs the top 1% who have been screwing everyone over.

[beam me up scottie]

123. BOOM!

You saw right through it.

[JDPriestly]

119. I don't think anyone is hostile to the interests of those who are Not in the middle class

and certainly not to Black Lives Matter.

The problem with Black Lives Matter and the Net Neutrality demonstration was not the issue represented by Black Lives Matter but rather the political ineptness of Black Lives Matter and of the Net Neutrality leaders.

Bernie's proposals are absolutely for the interests of what you call "the rest."

Obama's Obamacare failed to insure millions and millions of Americans. Bernie plans to rectify that failure.

Obama left the too big to fail banks intact, and during his administration, they have grown bigger yet. Bernie plans to rectify that.

Obama wants to raise the minimum wage a little (probably about the rate that most people are already being paid in urban areas and on which they can barely subsist). Bernie wants to raise it to a livable wage, now estimated at about $15 per hour.

Over and over, Bernie wants to help those at the very bottom. The middle class will also be helped, but a lot of Bernie's proposals will specifically help the bottom of our society the most.

Hillary -- not so strong on the matter of helping the really needy although in her heart I think she would like to. But I think she does not propose ideas for helping the very poor because they would cost a lot of money, and her banker friends don't want to pay for those kinds of programs.

Black Lives Matter is an excellent movement. They and Netroots Nation should not have demonstrated against their good friend, Bernie Sanders. He was among the first to react with condemnation of the police brutality in Ferguson. He was on the Black Lives Matter team before the demonstrators were born. The demonstrators are doing the right thing, but they should have presented their ideas to Bernie in a pre-arranged, less confrontational manner. It was gauche on their part. But they are young, and they did get good attention for their movement. The rest of us were cheated out of hearing O'Malley's speech. I really would have liked to hear what he planned to say.

[azmom]

168. I'm latina, and As I see it, the problems with our movements today,

Whether It's black lives matter, immigration reform, occupy, environmental, Net neutrality, GBLT, change for $15 and many others, is that we, the people that want to see real change, change at the roots of the problems, is that we fail to organize and support each other's movements.

At first, I like you was critical of what Blacks Lives matter did at Netroot nations. Not only did I not agree with that type of demonstrations, after all, I also had not been supportive of it when it was done to Obama, and it felt like an attack on Bernie. But on further reflection, and doing some reading on how to be an ally, I am now supportive of how BLM demonstrated. If you compare it to what LGBT, and Dreamers have been doing, it's very similar. It's a more aggressive type of demonstration, but it's an approach that many activists are using at this present time.

On a personal note. A long time ago, I got a lesson about being a true ally when I was at a demonstration to protest the murder of some undocumented immigrants, and I saw a small group of people who had signs that read GBLT for immigrant rights. I was truly moved by them and their show of support and it was their act that allowed me to open my heart and mind to that community.

Whether it's Bernie or Hillary who gets elected, I hope that the lesson we learn from all of this is that we have to learn how to unite our movements. We need to learn how to trust each other and to learn how to be real allies (it's a verb not a noun). Together, we have the power to change things.

[JDPriestly]

189. I agree. But the demonstrations should be supportive of each others' causes.

They should not disrupt and silence speakers at a major event.

I would have loved to hear what O'Malley had prepared to say.

I did not get to hear him. I'm a Sanders supporter, but I am interested in all points of view.

The Black Lives Matter should have been given enough respect to have its own time allotted to it to respectfully read the names. Instead of establishing a sense of mutual support among the many groups and interests under the big tent of the Democratic Party, that small group of the movement Black Lives Matter made themselves appear to be an opposition to O'Malley and Sanders. Sanders in particular is a strong supporter of equal rights for minorities, and should have been shown gratitude and encouraged to support equal rights for minorities even more strongly. Instead that group of Black Lives Matter demonstrated that they had not researched Sanders' history or current actions on the part of their cause and looked ineffective and hostile.

You do realize that Sanders' planned speech for the Netroots Nation event was on immigration. So the Black Lives Matter stopped a speech for immigration reform. That is absolutely the opposite of what you are requesting. And I agree with you that the important thing is that the different interest groups in the Democratic Party need to work together and support each other.

[azmom]

196. I was very upset when it first happened. Like I said,

This type of demonstration has always left me cold. I used to find it disrespectful and ineffective. My views on this type of demonstration has changed. It took long discussions with my 20 year old, who is more up to date on activism, and some reading to change my views.

I see now, that activists feel they have to be more aggressive. They feel that the old ways have not worked and are trying something different. Remember the Trans immigrant that disrupted Obama. Same thing.

I also learned that as an ally, I have to trust that the activists know more about the cause than I probably do and I need to trust that they know what they are doing. As an ally they are looking for me "to have their back".

It took me until two days ago to come to a full understanding of what it takes to be an ally. It was not easy to accept as many things That are asked of you are really hard to do. But in the end, if I want people to be allies in my causes, i need to be an ally to theirs.

Are you going to a meeting tonight?

[JDPriestly]

217. Yes. I will be in a meeting tonight.

I'm looking forward to it.

[MannyGoldstein]

97. While FDR certainly didn't end social injustice

But his presidency moved the ball forward quite a bit.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history

He signed orders ending government hiring based on race, color, creed, or national origin. He appointed PoC to high government positions (and of course appointed the first woman cabinet member).

[bvar22]

265. He also commissioned PoC as OFFICERS in the US Military.

White enlisted men had to call them "Sir" and salute them, or go to the brig for insubordination.
There was no turning back after that, but it has been a long, hard struggle that is not near over yet.

[MannyGoldstein]

267. I didn't know that!

Thanks!

[bvar22]

270. The Tuskegee Airmen who passed flight school and flew the escort P-51s in Europe were all officers.

The military was still segregated at the time, but there was some mixing of forces, and a salute and a "Sir" were requires.
Truman later desegregated the Armed Forces, but the groundwork was laid by FDR who approved the Black Officers.

Here, you can clearly see the Lieutenant Bar on the shoulder of the officer in the lower left.

[bvar22]

203. You can have the New Deal without the Jim Crow.

You can also have Truman's Fair Deal, and LBJs Great Society, War on Poverty,Medicare, and Civil Rights...
ALL without the side helping of Jim Crow.
Jim Crow was not written to ANY of those.

In fact, if you were to go study FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights in his 1944 SOTU,
you will find these words:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
---FDR, 1944

I challenge you to find ANY official Democratic Party Document that pledges Racial Equality that pre-dates FDR's proclamation. As far as I know, FDR was the FIRST American President to make Racial Equality a Party Platform Goal.

[George II]

57. And criticizing the Democrats at every turn.

[ram2008]

65. Easily...

Will Bernie appoint conservative Supreme Justices that will try to overturn Marriage Equality?

Will Bernie try and repeal Obamacare?

Will Bernie overturn Dodd-Frank?

Will Bernie turn back the page on relations with Cuba?

Will Bernie sabotage the Iran nuclear deal?

Will Bernie authorize unnecessary wars in the Middle East damaging our international reputation?


Answer is NO he won't. Not the case if a Republican is President.

[BainsBane]

73. Here's the problem with Bernie not being a Democrat

He hasn't forged the alliances and relationships that come from years in a party. He wants to take advantage of the resources and organization of the Democratic party, despite refusing to join it for his decades in politics.

There is campaigning and campaigning. You expect Barack Obama to bust his ass for someone who is explicitly hostile to the President and his accomplishments? Not likely. He doesn't owe Bernie anything.

On one hand, you all insist Obama has been a worthless president, accomplished nothing or is responsible for instituting oligarchy. Then you try to claim Bernie would uphold his legacy. You can't have it both ways. No one owes you or Bernie a fucking thing. You want to elect someone from outside the party. You're going to have to do the work yourselves.

[sheshe2]

81. Outstanding post, Bains.

[ram2008]

87. You're putting words in peoples mouths

No one said Obama is a worthless president. He has achieved a lot, almost all of which Bernie is in SUPPORT of. (Probably with the exception of TPP)

Bernie would take Obama's policies and go even FURTHER to the left, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Bernies policies would build and add upon Obamas achievements and further address economic and structural inequality.

[BainsBane]

92. Many here have said it

And Bernie is explicitly running against Obama.

BTW, is there a source for your OP?

[ram2008]

96. Bernie is not explicitly running against Obama

I'm an Obama supporter and for that reason I support Bernie...

He's running against the corruption that is starting to pervade our politics and our business and that's harming our country. Obama is one man, he is not responsible for what has happened, nor can he fix it.

As for my OP: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/hillary-clinton-keystone-xl-pipeline/

[1monster]

115. Oh Poo!

[BainsBane]

118. You called?

[1monster]

121. ;:o)

Nice to see a sense of humor. Humor seems to disappear from DU during the primary season.

[BainsBane]

130. Pooh makes everyone smile

[PassingFair]

177. You know who DID run against Obama? Hillary.

This is absurd.

[beam me up scottie]

185. +1,000,000,000

[BeanMusical]

197. Lol, nailed it.

[MoonchildCA]

249. Yes!

[beam me up scottie]

94. That's what she does best, look upthread.

No sense trying to have a discussion with that one, ram2008.

It'll just make your head hurt so bad your teeth will ache.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Bernie caucuses with Democrats,

and the DNC is raising money using his name.

We'd better get your important information about Bernie to Wasserman-Schultz and her dog Demmy, fast!

[JDPriestly]

153. Bernie is pretty much an Obama supporter.

There are things that Obama could and should have done better. His healthcare insurance plan does not insure everyone. Everyone needs insurance and should be insured.

Obama has not sufficiently reformed our financial sector. Needs lots more work there. Our economy is in jeopardy if another one of the too big to fail banks or investment firms goes under. And that could well happen at any time. The Fed is keeping the construction sector going with low interest rates. But those low interest rates have a downside. They cause savers to invest too large a share of their savings and money in the stock market. That pumps up the value of the stock market to an unrealistic and precarious height. So we do not have a healthy economy although it outwardly appears to be better than in 2008.

The Keystone pipeline has not yet been put to rest. That needs to be done. We have not yet made enough progress on alternative energy.

The constant testing and privatization (almost wrote piratization which would be fairly accurate actually) of our schools has continued apace. That needs to change.

The TPP is a disaster in the making. That and other trade agreements that give supernational right to corporations and allow corporations to sue nations in special arbitration courts in which the corporations get to pick a judge are very dangerous.

Obama has made his share of mistakes. He has also done some great things -- like the Iran deal, like at least making some progress toward health insurance for all and improving generally our foreign relations. We are no longer the pariah that we were on the international front while Bush was president.

Bernie supports much, virtually all of the good things that Obama has done, but Bernie has some ideas that will take the nation further down the path that Obama is on. Bernie is a supporter of Obama. Please name some areas in which Bernie has criticized Obama directly. There is a lot of unfinished business, but other than maybe with regard to defense spending (which is mostly decided by Congress), I don't see Bernie as unreasonably criticizing Obama.

Hillary is downright sycophantic and I suspect devious with regard to pretending to support Obama when in fact we don't know where she stands on certain issues because she refuses to tell us. How can we vote for a candidate who won't tell us where she stands on the controversial issues like the TPP and the XL pipeline? I can't anyway.

[BainsBane]

175. He insisted Obama be primaried in 2012

That has been discussed on the Obama Diary. People there take it as opposition to Obama.

I expect Hillary's concern about Keystone is the same as Obama's: environmental concerns vs. jobs; environmental groups vs. unions. It's easy to have an opinion when your opinion affects nothing in people's lives.
When what you believe has a real world impact, it takes more thought. Sanders makes all sorts of promises that Hillary doesn't. Why? Because she knows she has a good chance of being faced with having to live up to those promises. Such things are far easier said than done when you've got a GOP congress. (Here I'm thinking of a set number for the minimum wage, that sort of thing).

[JDPriestly]

182. Bernie makes more promises because he is more determined to get the things he promises

done. He is not worried about not trying hard enough and being caught with his promises hanging down to his knees.

Hillary is more tentative. She is not as sure of what she wants to do or thinks she can do. And on some issues, like the pipeline, she is willing to compromise what should not be compromised, what it is not in the interests of the American people to compromise.

Same on wages. You can live in India on very little because the laws about getting a building permit before you put up a lean-to are either nonexistent or not as generally enforced.

In the US, if you have a family, you are pretty much required to have indoor plumbing if you want to live near other people. That costs money. The lifestyle that Americans are required to have -- like mandatory grade school education for your children -- is expensive.

Bernie understands that the required lifestyle cannot be had for $7.25 per hour and probably not even or not for very long at $10.10 per hour. That is why he is promising $15 per hour, and not because he is less worried about failure. Bernie is dedicated to doing what he says he will do.

And unlike Hillary, Bernie is letting us know that he cannot do the things he promises without us. We are the political revolution that Bernie is asking for. He makes no bones about that.

We are so lucky to have such a strong, honest, dedicated presidential candidate as Bernie. It's really an amazing thing. I am 72, and I cannot remember any candidate, at least not since McGovern who held the interests of the American people so close to his heart. But McGovern was not as realistic as Bernie is. Bernie tells it like it is.

I never thought that at the age of 72 I could have so much hope in a candidate and for our country.

It is interesting to me that the seeming, at least for the moment, favorite of the Republicans is Trump. He is a bombastic version of a Three Stooges joke with a tinge of Mafia-like fraud mixed in for the sake of drama. What a horrible man. Depraved, deranged and decadent -- Donald Trump. The Republicans have just lost it. The GOP is but a piece of dust about to be sucked up by the Bernie machine. Can't wait to see this happen.

[questionseverything]

180. did you mean to come off as insulting to potus as you did?

i have many policy disagreements with current potus but i have never believed he did not care at all about the American PEOPLE...as you seem to assume

he may not owe bernie anything but if WE THE PEOPLE decide bernie will be the democratic candidate current potus owes US THE BEST HELP HE CAN GIVE....including busting his ass to keep a repub out of the wh

[BainsBane]

258. and if the people decide Ted Cruz is the nominee?

Does he owe it to them to bust his ass campaigning for Cruz? Republican voters are people to. Party is another thing, and Bernie has never wanted to be a Democrat.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical. Bernie won't be the nominee.

[bvar22]

205. "you all insist Obama has been a worthless president, accomplished nothing"

Please post a link to where ANY member of DU has said that.
Otherwise, I can't take your postings in good faith.

BTW: You used "you all", so you will have to find a bunch of links to cover your statement,
but I'll settle for just one.

I'll wait.

[rury]

257. Amen BainsBane

Bernie won't get my vote in the primary because he is running around dissing President Obama's outstanding, significant and beneficial accomplishments.
Hillary won't get my vote because she's a liar and a corporatist.
O'Malley?????????
I think I will write in President Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary even though he is ineligible to run again. He's my favorite!!!!!!!!
In the general I'll hold my nose and vote for the Democratic nominee, even though NONE of them thrill me.

[BainsBane]

260. Obama can't run again

So you might try to find someone you can tolerate to vote for. It's early days yet. Perhaps the debates will soften you up to one of them. O'Malley seems pretty cool to me, from what bigtree posts. I'm going with Hillary though, at least for now.

[bvar22]

266. You mean he hasn't been corrupted by Party "insiders".

I agree.

[WillyT]

88. OMG... 'How would campaigning for Bernie uphold his (Obama's) legacy?

R U F'NG KIDDING ME ???

First... Most do not... give a rat's ass about Obama's "Legacy" at this point. He paid lip service to Democratic Principles when he took office and squandered a chance to lift millions out of the shit-hole the Republicans and their policies put us in.

IOW - He kept his "comfortable pair of shoes" secured in his White House closet.

Second... Bernie is only running against Obama's presidency in as much as Obama played Patti-Cakes with the monied status-quo. Obama ran on changing the system, and then got bought out by the system. Bernie is running against the corruption the system has accepted and encouraged.

The fact that Obama decided to play ball with the monied powers is beside the point for bernie.

He does not run against Obama, and his so-called "Legacy"... he runs against a corrupt system.

[Historic NY]

179. Try selling that to the Democrats that put him in the WH twice...

then remind yourself Sanders is not, nor never was a member of the Democratic Party.

[bvar22]

213. I am one of those who helped put him in the White House twice,

and I am voting Bernie this time.
Believe me when I tell you there are many more like myself.


Lieberman was NOT a member of the Democratic Party when the entire conservative Democratic Leadership showed up to support him over the official Democrat who won the Democratic Primary.
Arlen Specter was just barely a Democrat (switched Parties without switching ideologies),
jumped the line ahead of a REAL Democrat (Sestack) with full Party support including an Oval Office endorsement.

[Historic NY]

251. The polls nor the contributions are showing that......

if you don't think that is key then your looking for unicorns. I'm not the only one saying that even members of the Democratic Socialists are. Somehow there is the """illusion""" that big money isn't needed. Really try defending the onslaught and it will be coming from what now 17 individual campaigns and dozens of PACS.

[rhett o rick]

236. You make a good point. The Conservative Democrats, like the DNC, probably would let

Sen Sanders be on his own. Goldman-Sachs would rather have Jeb if he can't have Clinton. And Goldman-Sachs has a lot of pull with the Conservative Democrats.

[beam me up scottie]

66. skinner said the same thing.

BB and George think Obama would sabotage our chance to hold the White House but he's no PUMA.

Doesn't seem like they think too highly of the president.

[winter is coming]

90. If Obama can inhabit the same room as the Bushes, I think he can suck it up

and campaign for the Dem nominee, regardless of his personal opinions.

[virtualobserver]

69. yes, everyone is so naive....they imagine that you can tell the American people what you believe!

...as if that was any way to win an election.

[MADem]

138. No, it's kind of sad.

The utter CERTAINTY, and the complete lack of structural understanding! Not even the basics!

Oh well--let them dream.

[sabrina 1]

149. Oh yes they do, and that is WHY they are looking for politicians who ARE NOT more

worried about how 'things LOOK' than about what is best for the country. Thanks to you both for verifying what Hillary supporters have been denying.

We understand perfectly and you might want to check what the polls say about how disgusted the American people are with all this 'inside DC' garbage. They want straight, honest statements from those asking for their votes.

And they care about Issues, they don't care about a politician's personal ambitions.

I can't believe they are so blatant about it. It just goes to show how completely out of touch they are with the voters.

[SusanCalvin]

155. Of course I understand.

Yep, I surely do.

[RiverNoord]

216. If that's 'how this works,' you should be ashamed of yourself.

We might as well write a computer program to run for President. It would calculate all the electoral pros and cons of every conceivable statement of position, then generate an appropriate response. Every response would be lukewarm, and a position taken could easily be reversed the next day. Language employed in all dialogue would always be warm-sounding but extremely equivocal, and a change in position would hardly be noticed by most people.

You really don't mind supporting a candidate who explicitly tells you that she won't discuss her position on a major issue that is timely and relevant to her most immediate political experience, AND adds 'I have a position, but I don't want to tell you jokers because then some of you wouldn't vote for me, so stuff it?'

[A Simple Game]

220. You don't understand it, let me help.

When asked a question the candidate should answer truthfully, sincerely, and in simple terms, a yes or no is often sufficient. Failure to do so could result in a slaughter by the media the next day. I bet I saw that clip 10 times on the news this morning, I also heard it on the radio.

It was quite refreshing, but then I'm a Bernie type person.

[JDPriestly]

84. So she should be dishonest with the American people if it means that being dishonest

will help her win.

Bernie doesn't see things that way, and I think that is one of the reasons that people who watch the news very carefully like him so much.

Hillary doesn't seem very honest to many of us.

She should say what she thinks.

I'm guessing she would OK the XL Pipeline. For me, that's another reason to support Bernie, not Hillary.

[MADem]

135. She's not being dishonest--she's letting her former boss do his thing without her interference.

She's being LOYAL.

Too bad if you don't like it--I find it laudable that she displays loyalty to her former boss.

You're not going to vote for her, so stop playing like you're actually "weighing" a decision.

But you're in the minority, and that's where you're likely to stay.

As for your guesses, that and five bucks will buy you a cup of burnt coffee at Starbucks. I think you're dead wrong--I think she's against it, but she won't say anything until Obama makes his move and this is behind him.

We'll know soon enough.

[JDPriestly]

145. This reminds me of the paragraph in Elizabeth Warren's book in which she describes

a dinner with Larry Summers and he tells her that if she wants to be with the in crowd, she can't criticize them.

We do not elect our representatives, our senators and our presidents to be loyal to that "inside" crowd in D.C.

We elect them to do what is right for the country.

Obama has not yet OK'd the XL pipeline. If he does, it will take a while to get it built through the land through which it SHOULD NOT BE BUILT. very

So Clinton could call the project off after being elected with the simple explanation that new facts have been learned., That is if Obama approves it.

We do not want a president who is impeccably loyal to the prior president. That has not happened in our history that I can think of. Teddy Roosevelt picked his successor - Taft - and then ran against him when Taft didn't always do what Teddy wanted. FDR picked Truman or at least agreed to Truman. But Truman governed very differently from FDR.

That's normal.

Much as we like Obama, we don't want the next president to be "loyal" to Obama but rather to be loyal to the American people and the inerests of our country. I do not trust Hillary in that regard.

[Enthusiast]

150. Wow! Oh, baby!

[A Simple Game]

224. The LOYAL thing must be the newest meme. Perhaps I will have better luck with you in this dilemma.

I had a Hillary supporter tell me almost the exact same thing the other day, I thought I knew better. Seems that I did know better and part of my response to that poster is below.

Hillary Clinton criticizes President Obama’s foreign policy in interview with the Atlantic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-criticizes-president-obamas-foreign-policy-in-interview-with-the-atlantic/2014/08/11/46d30564-2170-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Funny, that poster never got back to me, maybe you will?

[MADem]

239. I don't mean to be rude, but haven't you read the papers lately?

In hindsight, that sounds to me like she trying out a strategy for wider (punditish) discussion, floating a trial balloon for her former boss that he could step back from without harming her (there are always people who favor a more robust approach) more than having an actual "fight" with POTUS.

What are they doing in Incirlik these days? I don't think they're mixing drinks in those aircraft.

I think she and POTUS are closer than ever on this issue. Do with that what you will....



You'd do well not to rely on Post--or NYT--headlines. They love to pit one against the other, when there's actually no "there" there. The meat in that article didn't match the dire headline at all. And events suggest that Clinton's views are still on point in the Obama White House. This paragraph under that dire headline isn't as much fun to read, I guess, because there's no suggestion of a big dust-up:

Shawn Brimley, who served as the National Security Council’s director for strategic planning during Obama’s first term, said he did not see “much of a chasm between where Secretary Clinton is and where the president’s been for some time.”

[A Simple Game]

253. Yes it sounds like she is really supporting him.

Now Clinton is offering a blunt retort to that approach, telling an interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles — and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

Gee I wonder who said "Don't do stupid stuff", got any ideas?

[MADem]

256. I enjoy the gift of literacy, and I did read the article.

The way you get a reporter to cover a story that is pretty much a boring, policy-wonk romp is to give them a hook.

That comment, to make this process 'a simple game,' was The Hook.

Do you seriously think this interview would have gotten any play if she'd academically enumerated her views? That was a bone thrown to a reporter. It may have been coordinated with the WH, given how easily and readily they commented, without even a hint of a ruffle or pique.

And obviously, Obama and she are singing from the same sheet music of late.

[A Simple Game]

259. I like this:

That was a bone thrown to a reporter.

It seems to me that "The Hook" was a bone she picked from the President.

Nice lady.

[MADem]

262. You're working that "rift" hook a bit too hard. This is an ancient article we are discussing,

from last year.

And the actions of the WH of late are closely married to the expressed Clinton strategy...so...whatever.

[A Simple Game]

272. Yes it is pretty old, almost a year. Sorry I forgot that the use by date for

any of Hillary's actions or speeches is less than a month.

Then there is the forty year old work of fiction written by Bernie often mentioned by Hillary supporters... seems the "use by date" is different depending upon which side you are on.

My, now you are saying that the President is taking all his cues from Hillary? It's getting so hard to keep up. Does our President not have a mind of his own? Does this marriage mean Hillary is First Lady again? Does Michelle know? So...whatever... does this mean besides all that Hillary has done in the past I can now blame all of President Obama's mistakes on her too? So would you say with regards to Syria that they had a lover's spat? So many questions...

[MADem]

273. You're working so very hard to have hurt feelings.

Your ire is palpable, and on such a hot day, too.

I'm sorry--I'm uninterested in playing such a simple game.

I'm also not interested in your repeatedly and deliberately "misinterpreting" (that is a polite word, mind you) what I am saying. You're trying way too hard, and it's obvious. A bit desperate, too, IMO.

Further, I'm not interested in "dinging" Senator Sanders for something he apologized for-- when this conversation is not about him, too--which you are doing by inserting that unnecessary remark about his literary efforts into this unrelated exchange. That attempt at escalation was obvious as well--and a huge fail.

It would probably help you if you'd spend more time supporting your favorite candidate than trying to find fault in others. That's how winners run a campaign.

But hey--far be it from me to tell you what to do! You want to believe there's a rift between Obama and Clinton? You go on....you believe, now!! Do you hear me? BELIEVE!!!







It matters not to me!






Have a nice day, now!

[A Simple Game]

274. Awww, you didn't have to tell me that it matters not to you, that was obvious when you

excused the evidence shown to you.

By the way, who did you support in '08? I'm just curious, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, many of Hillary's supporters don't seem to want to answer that question for some reason.

[MADem]

275. I guess you didn't figure out from my last post that we're done!

Not that it matters, but I supported HRC in the primary, Obama in the general. I supported Obama in 12, too!

I'm from MA, and I liked Dean over Kerry in that contest, before Dean imploded. At that point I committed to Kerry. I vote for the Democratic nominee. That's how I roll.

Your questions are strange--like you're HOPING for some kind of response. Want to paint me with that PUMA brush you see people waving around, is that it? Being a bit over-eager for a spat isn't the way to make people want to support your favored candidate.

I'll say this one more time--you need to spend more time convincing people why your candidate is all that. Trying to tear down other candidates (in this case, with nitpicky bullshit that you invent, using sources from a year ago, that have plainly been proven justified by current events), is what losers do.

I notice Sanders isn't playing that simple (and pointless) game--perhaps you should follow his lead.

[A Simple Game]

278. I liked Dean too, but he didn't implode, he was exploded.

Bernie doesn't need my help, convincing people to vote for him they just need to listen to him with an open mind.

Sorry I don't mean to pick on you, I just wonder how some can ignore facts when presented to them. But if providing a link to a story is tearing down a candidate, then I am as guilty as the person the article is about. As for a brush I don't have one and apparently I don't keep up because I don't even know what a PUMA is. Is it anything like a COUGAR?

Now this fascinated me:

(in this case, with nitpicky bullshit that you invent, using sources from a year ago, that have plainly been proven justified by current events

) and raises soo many questions.

Do you think I "invented" the article, really? I do remember reading about it at the time or seeing clips of it on TV or DU, that's why I googled it.
Is it bullshit because it is almost a year old? Do you think the author was lying about Hillary saying that? Or is it just irrelevant because of it's age?
And I just don't understand the "that have plainly been proven justified by current events" part at all.

As for what caused my first response to you, you made a claim about Hillary "being LOYAL", I knew better and offered proof. You chose not to find it relevant. If it was just that article there are many more and different examples if you care to do a search, I won't bother to provide a link.

Sorry the conversation is over, you too have a nice day.

[MADem]

281. No--he imploded BEFORE he exploded.

His orange hat crew let him down in Iowa. He came in a Very Sad THIRD, after he was touted to win the thing in a walk. He was being exhortative in his "scream" moment BECAUSE he lost, and badly, too. The flu didn't help, but let's get real here--he was a victim of INFLATED expectations, and he failed to deliver in a big way--that is what doomed him.

Let's not reinvent history, here.

He learned the value of a ground game because of that failure, and he used it to strengthen the Democratic party. He's supporting Clinton now, so ...whatever.

As for the article, you are just wrong. You never stop to think that a lot of times, there's coordination before a former cabinet official speaks. There's tacit approval. Often, former government officials are "used" by the present leadership to go where they cannot (e.g. Bill Clinton going to North Korea to get those two women out). They're used to float ideas and garner comment when the principals can't, because doing so would make them appear "waffly" or indecisive.

To play like the relationship between HRC and BHO is a constant Hammer-and-Tongs scenario is childish. And Obama and Clinton are, neither of them, children. They understand each other. They understand that a rising tide lifts all boats. Obama's best hope to carry his legacy forward is NOT Bernard Sanders. It's Hillary Clinton.

You don't have to like that fact, but fact it is.

[A Simple Game]

286. Wow that article really got to you, it must have really hit a sore spot, sorry I brought it up.

One of us has to cut this off, I guess you aren't so I will.

Have a nice day.

[MADem]

287. Tsk tsk--throwing shade like that is beneath you. You shouldn't play that--you lose. nt

[TheKentuckian]

225. Where was all of this loyalty when she was scrambling to his right on arming Syrians?

BALONEY!

It is craven excuse making and lame rationalizations.

She is just dishonest and calculating. This is just another side of the dodging sniper fire and home based web servers mentality. Avarice for power and will say and do anything to get it.

Machiavellian bullshit and just one of her secret plans to "end the Vietnam War".

[MADem]

235. Don't get so angry. It's a discussion. You disagree. And I disagree with you.

So there we are.

[LondonReign2]

269. Craven excuse making and lame rationalizations pretty much sum

up her supporters in this thread.

Throw in a hearty dose of "its fine to lie" and there you have their ethical outlook in a nutshell.

[John Poet]

74. 'Vote for Me Now, Ask Questions Later'

'Entitlement'

[JDPriestly]

83. She lacks the courage to be a good president.

[V0ltairesGh0st]

201. Too many "Americans"

lack the courage to understand what it truly means be a responsible citizen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

161. That's a good part of WHY she's still the frontrunner so far.

When you take positions on things, you ARE going to alienate part of the electorate. And taking the stance she probably takes, given that she DID help oversee moving Keystone along, is definitely going to alienate the most energetic activists and voters in the Party, but if she came out in opposition, she'd alienate HER natural base, the centrists and corporatists who believe in 'All of the Above' energy policies, that keep big oil in business. It's a no-win for her.

[rhett o rick]

237. If anything, she is a politician. With Sen Sanders, what you see is what you get.

No triangulation there. Sen Sanders represents the 99% and the Conservative Democrats represent Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang.

[V0ltairesGh0st]

193. She's cruising to get BERNED !

I never was a fan, and now i know I'm not. There is such a thing as overstating your position and this it Mrs. Clinton.

[bvf]

3. Someone elsewhere here

likened her response to McCain's 2008 claim that he knew how to get Bin Laden.

What insulting horseshit.

[winter is coming]

4. That's a clip that will haunt her for a long time.

Not sure it rises to the level of a 47% moment, but it's not good.

[GeorgeGist]

5. How arrogant that she assumes she will be president.

[murielm99]

56. They all assume that.

That is why they are running: to become President.

[Agschmid]

77. Yup.

[cocainecowboy]

63. She hasn't earned my vote and never will...

I'm undecided, between O'Malley and Bernie, but leaning towards Bernie. Clinton will be a disaster for the GE - and ensures her loss if she is nominated because I sure as hell don't want her to represent me or the Democratic Party. I will simply leave the Presidential ballot blank if it's Clinton, but will fill it if it's someone else, and vote Democratic downtickets.

[murielm99]

82. You might as well vote for the republican.

You will be doing the same thing by not voting for President.

I can't wait to see the mass bannings here after the primaries.

[MADem]

6. Shit on your boss who can help you in your general election campaign? Now THAT's a stupid move!

She's smart to keep her mouth shut.

Anyone who says otherwise is rooting for someone else--and that colors their perspective, right there.

There's no point in getting one's intestines in an uproar over something that will be DONE by the time she gets to it.

There's just no point.

That quote won't haunt her--what would haunt her is if she said "I hate it" and the administration decided to go with it, or she said "I love it" and the administration couldn't get it going. Then, the story would be "Ewwwww, cat fight--Clinton and Obama go hammer-n-tongs!! See???? Seeeee??? Oooooh, they're FIGHTING (clickbait clickbait) !!!"

There is No Win to opening her mouth. NONE.

And truth is, most voters don't give as much of a shit about this issue as the members of DU.

[bvf]

9. Nonetheless,

it was a pretty stupid response from someone with her supposed political chops.

Tapdancing through an answer I could almost understand. Instead, she came up with this:

[beam me up scottie]

13. !

[bvf]

16. This one's better.

[beam me up scottie]

29. LOL!

Her supporters are just as entertaining!

[1monster]

120. Oooo I like to dance a little side step...

[winter is coming]

126. LOL, I was thinking that, too! n/t

[ram2008]

10. Not buying it.

A very simple answer could've been

"Personally, I'm For/Against the Keystone Pipeline, but I will respect whatever the administration decides is the best course of action."

[customerserviceguy]

160. Still trying to play the game

of keeping organized labor, who wants the pipeline, and environmentalists, who don't want it onboard, because at this point, both sides think they're going to prevail.

[winter is coming]

11. So the President won't campaign for someone who disagrees with one of his policies?

I'd expect him to be less shallow and more committed to a Democratic win than that.

[MADem]

15. Short answer? YES. Yes, he will NOT campaign.

Or if he does, it will be perfunctory and lackluster.

You want less shallow, I suggest you install an in-ground pool.

This is how politics is played.

[winter is coming]

20. If that's how politics is played, we're better off going with a candidate not too

closely associated with the present Administration. At least we'll get some honest answers. Or some answers, period.

[Ed Suspicious]

28. +1

[daleanime]

31. +1

[beam me up scottie]

33. +3

[MADem]

46. Good grief--surely you don't think it goes down any other way???

And if you think a "candidate not too closely associated with the present Administration" is going to get a pass, you're high. He's got problems of his own--not the least being his comments on immigration. Obama's not going to want to snuggle up with him, certainly.

Once the media machine starts firing on all cylinders, it's the candidate who doesn't have a tightly crafted message who will be screwed royally. It's not about "honest answers" at that point--it's about crafting a platform that "sells" to the American people, and communicating it effectively.

Bullworth only worked in the movies.

[George II]

55. If he winds up winning the nomination (highly unlikely) he'll get even less support.....

....and then if he somehow convinces the general electorate and gets elected, he'll probably only have Angus King for support (if even him)

[passiveporcupine]

78. Yeah, kinda like the Mafia

You can pay for protection, or you can loose your business. So Hillary is Mafia...who'd a thunk it!

And some people don't seem to have a problem with "politics as usual"

Bernie is not playing that game. He's trying to end the Mafia.

[JDPriestly]

103. +1

If Obama goes with the XL pipeline now that his term is almost up, it will definitely hurt Hillary's campaign if she promises to go through with it and follow up on his decision.

The XL pipeline will then again become a big issue.

The TPP is already separating a lot of potential Democratic voters from the president and Hillary. Americans who are will informed (the opinion-makers out in the communities) do not want these trade agreements.

Hillary will not be popular if she avoids all the touchy subjects that grass-roots Democrats feel strongly about. And she seems to be making that mistake.

Also, Hillary fans, her baggage is getting heavier every day. Today on Yahoo, there was a link to an article quoting Linda Tripp. Ugh. It isn't fair. Linda Tripp is a horrible person in my view. But a lot of people will listen to what people like her who have known Hillary say. That's Hillary's heavy baggage, and there is just so much of it.

Not saying what she thinks about the XL pipeline and the TPP makes Hillary look more like the person that her enemies want the public to think she iw. She does not look like a strong person of courage.

I don't think Obama is that petty. I have a higher opinion of him than that.

[George II]

41. Speaking of shallow, how about someone who spurned the Democratic Party all his life...

....but when it comes time for him to run for President he's okay with the Party?

[MADem]

43. Shallow...or opportunistic? Inquiring minds want to know! nt

[Armstead]

72. Two Words - Ralph Nader

If Sanders wanted tonrun for President, whether to truly win orvto make a point, he had two choices.

Run as a Democrat in the primary and take his chances, or run as an independent and just be a spoiler.

He chose the course that makes sense. If he ran as a third oarty candidate, I'm sure youd be first in the bleachers to bevyelling "Boo. Spolier."

[JDPriestly]

158. Is that why we Democrats lost so badly in 2016?

Because Obama refused to campaign for people who didn't do what he wanted?

I don't think Obama is all THAT egotistical.

I think he is more idealistic and more sincere about being a Democrat than that.

But we did lose really badly.


The thing that disappoints me most about Obama is his failure to help union members in Wisconsin when Walker put their livelihoods and futures up as ransom for his re-election and for retaining his popularity.

Obama did not support workers or unions at that point. And that made me very sad.

Because supporting workers and unions is the job of Democrats. And if a Democratic president can't strongly speak out for unions and for working people, then America is in a shambles.

That really disappointed me. I like Obama very much. He is a wonderful person and that matters. He is great on foreign policy although his policy in Syria has proved wrong. Still, he has done overall a good job on foreign policy, and his Obamacare has set the country on the right road with regard to healthcare even though he has only begun the job and not finished getting everyone covered.

But Obama appointed the wrong person to head the Democratic Party organization. And he has played footsie with Wall Street and the financial sector far too much. Hillary is making the same mistake. Thus Obama's views on the trade agreements are endangering American national sovereignty.

Still, Obama has been courageous with regard to immigration. I think he should have done more to stop the militarization of our police forces. The appearance of the police of America in their military roster expelling unarmed Occupy groups from various public properties was pretty disgusting. As is the surveillance in America. I read today in the Guardian (and posted it here) that Homeland Security has placed the Black Lives Matter movement under surveillance. First, the federal government has done far too little to prevent the police use of excessive force against African-Americans and now we learn that the group that is speaking out against that use of excessive force has been placed under surveillance. That is a bit much, especially considering that our President is African-American or half African-American himself. Still, we see President Obama visiting Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia, and we must credit him with restoring the good will of many nations toward our country. He is a delightful person, a kind person in many respects who has borne the weight of the world almost literally upon his shoulders with strength and grace.

I cannot believe that Obama is so foolish and so petty as to refuse to acknowledge that there are things about his administration that he could have done better. He should not have appointed Geithner or Bernanke or Larry Summers -- all big mistakes. Same for Holder. It was time for someone to rock the boat a bit in the Justice Department. The killing of so many Black suspects under police custody and the failure to indict any of the cheating bankers and mortgage company bosses are two bits of evidence that support my claim in that regard.

So, I just cannot believe that Obama actually thinks his administration is so perfect that Bernie is wrong to suggest ways to improve things in the US. As for free college, even Obama has suggested that the first two years of junior college should be free. Virtually everything that Sanders is suggesting builds upon and improves what Obama has done. I cannot say the same for what Hillary's rather vague policy proposals look like. I think in many respects she is more critical of Obama's direction than is Bernie. Her unwillingness to say what she thinks on some issues suggests to me that she disagrees with the president on the XL pipeline for example.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your views on Bernie and Obama. I think they are more a sort of harmonious progression than Hillary and Obama would be. There is something rather conservative about Hillary's evasive stances. She is afraid to rock the boat. Obama at least began his 2008 campaign as quite a boat rocker or that was the public perception. Hillary is trying to come across as the most conservative of Democrats. Not a good move at this time.

Unions are going to be a big issue. Walker is as likely as not to be the Republican candidate, and he is big on union busting. Hillary can't brag much about the growth or support of unions during Bill Clinton's term. NAFTA pretty much put the finishing touches on the union movement in industry in the US.

So I have so many reasons for supporting Bernie and for seeing him as the logical successor to Obama that I cannot write them all down.

[ieoeja]

202. Which is why she hasn't been highly critical of his foreign policy!

Oh ... wait ....

[SwampG8r]

163. Remember you are dealing with Clinton folks

Did bill go to the mats for gore?
The Clinton's and their followers see things only through the "does this make us richer" filter
I am content in my knowledge she cannot carry a GE
If the party allows her the nomination then the fix is in for the GOP .
She is as she showed inre keystone that she is her own worst enemy

[m-lekktor]

14. if that is the case and Obama is as petty

as you make him out to be, why didn't she just go ahead and give the answer that will keep her in Obama's good graces? after all, nobody cares about this except partisans for a "particular candidate" here at DU.

[MADem]

21. It's not a question of "petty." It's a question of rudimentary intelligence.

She might find it useful to diverge from Obama on some issues, but on signature ones she's going to be slow to move away and if she can get the same result by doing nothing, she's better off.

This is just realpolitik. Obama can easily handle her having a difference of opinion once the deal is done, he just wouldn't appreciate her shitting on his efforts when she has no dog in this fight at this stage of the game. No matter what she says or does, her input is not crucial to this process. It's tangential and barely noticed. She is not a sitting Senator, she is no longer SECSTATE.

She has No Role.

She's smart to play it like she's playing it.

[roguevalley]

40. her negatives are too high for her to be cute. it just highlites her oppositions courage

In stating opinions. Just had a big short earthquake. Need to find where my cats were hiding.

[MADem]

101. Who's talking about "cute?" This is common sense.

Courage doesn't mean squat to voters. They want someone who can get things done, not talk about how they're right and everyone else is wrong. Voters like to hear soaring rhetoric, but at the end of the day they want bread-and-butter solutions.

Look under the bed for the cats--when I was in the Loma Prieta earthquake, that's where I found mine....!

[ram2008]

105. If you want someone without courage...

Who can also get the most stuff done, then vote for Jeb Bush.

A moderate Republican with a brokered congress will be able to get the most done.

I, however, will vote for someone who has the courage to stand up for what I believe in and fight to get the right things done. Not someone who focus tests every single position in the context of a triangulation strategy.

[MADem]

112. Now that's just baiting snark. Waaah!!! Vote for JEB BUSH!!!!

He's not a "moderate Republican." Moderate Republicans are guys like Charlie Baker.

He's a guy who is rabidly anti-choice, the idiot who didn't want Terri Schiavo unplugged, the jerk who destroyed the already pathetic FL school system with his charter and Christian initiatives. That's just for starters. There's plenty more where that came from.

Add to that the fact that he's never worked with the US Congress--and I doubt any of them will be bullied by his version of Cheney this time around. What did his dumb brother say? Fooled me once, won't git fooled agin?

UGH. You shouldn't be fooled by the fact that he's not as visibly crazy as his brother.

Here's why "focus testing" works. It encompasses the wishes, hopes and dreams of the majority of the nation--not ten percent on one wing or another. You can pooh-pooh it all you want, but anyone with enough money uses it--because it helps candidates "focus" on things voters care about.

[ram2008]

117. Maybe Hillary should get new focus testers then

Because every time she says something her numbers go down.

[MADem]

125. She's doing fine, and she's exactly where she needs to be.

Waaaah--it's a coronation!!!


But...but...but ....

Ah HA--her numbers are going down!!! Be Very Afraid!!!


Let it play out. I'm not worried--I think she's sailing smoothly into the wind.

[roguevalley]

246. 6.3 baby! I think a volcano is waking up. Oh joy. :D

[MADem]

248. Do stay safe and well. Get out the cat carrier, if you have one, just in case.

Maybe give the cats a place to go hide that's sturdy and feels cave-like. And, push comes to shove, you can toss them in there and do a runner, if needs must.

[CanadaexPat]

89. Keystone is not a signature issue for Obama.

He's said plenty to suggest he might oppose it. Everyone in the Dem leadership will support the Dem nominee and work for that nominee to win.

[MADem]

99. It will be if he comes out for it--she wants to see what way he jumps.

If he jumps against it, that makes it easier for her--but she's not going to screw her former boss....he will HELP her if she remains loyal.

And if you think "Everyone will support the Dem nominee" you haven't studied very many elections. Ask Hubert Humphrey how much help he got...

[MADem]

222. She doesn't want the media to paint her as "pushing" Obama. She understands that leaders gotta

lead.

She had a unique perspective in how the press plays GOTCHA with the Chief Executive as FLOTUS. She knows what kind of shit he will take if someone else tells him what his "idea" is gonna be.

You don't PUSH. You especially don't PUSH when the outcome is not affected by your pushing. It's a churlish thing to do.

She likes POTUS and she's going to need his help in the general. She's smart to hold her fire, even if the people who admit they don't like her and won't vote for her are whinging about why she won't talk to them about something that will NOT--at the end of the day--change their vote.

See--no one cares about her POV save her sworn enemies. No upside in talking to them. Don't hand the ammo to the opponents, Rule One of any shootout. Rule two is, if you can get your opponents talking about arcane, dull shit that won't sway your base, do that--let them stew! It's all good--they spin, you move. Win-win.

[SunSeeker]

22. Thanks for bringing some reality to the discussion, MADem. nt

[MADem]

35. It's like shovelling sand against the tide. The sexist snark, the "Ewww, I hate Hillary" posts

will overtake, because this is a website where contrarians who prefer the least likely alternative thrive.

The real world is another story, but in here, Kucinich used to be king. Now he's a low-tier commentator at Fox News.

Ain't nothing to do but let them have their fun, and spout their snark for posterity and the archives.

[Armstead]

76. If a male candidate said he'd only divulge his opinion if elected...

It would be equally criticized as arrogent and obnoxious and entitled.

[MADem]

102. I think he'd be called pragmatic and thoughtful, weighing all the options, not being hasty or

"emotional."

[ram2008]

107. Hillary, emotional?

That's a laugh. She displayed about as much emotion as Mitt Romney during this campaign.

[MADem]

133. I have news for you (and you're apparently unclear on the process, from your comments).

"This campaign" has barely begun. We are in what is known as the summer doldrums, where everyone is at the beach and no one is paying attention to politics (save a few people on message boards like this one). This campaign has not begun in earnest. Not even close.

You will know when it does begin, though--you'll be bombarded with commercials if you live in or near Iowa, NH or a Super Tuesday state.

[Armstead]

109. I don't think so

Not everything fits into the filter of sexism.

A politician who refuses to take a position on a major issue of concern to many people, and says and say it that obnoxious a manner, is going to get criticized regardless of gender.

[MADem]

131. Well, I do. And since you don't understand the constraints that a cabinet official -- or a former

official who didn't leave in a huff-- operates under while his/her boss is still sitting in the Oval Office, I can't help you understand. There is a shared sense of purpose as well as loyalty that is part and parcel of that working relationship. It's why the principal chose the cabinet official in the first place.

If you can't get that, you can't get that.

And PLENTY fits in the "filter of sexism." It's evident in this very thread.

[Armstead]

162. I understand the constraints. But that does not prevent her rom taking a position.

It;s not like this is some highly sensitive national security issue that requires confidentiality.

She COULD say where she stands on it in a way that doesn't violate those constraints.

But she doesn't want to, because, like on so many other issues, she knows that many members of the voter pool she needs has opinions, and that some of them would be opposed if she actually states where she stands.

Hell, if she's for the damn thing, why not just say it and live with the consequences?

[MADem]

165. It does if she

a) Does not want to harm her former boss;
b) Does not want to step on his feet as he comes to a decision;
c) Knows any input she has doesn't make a difference to the outcome;
d) Wants to keep her old boss close, because his endorsement in the general will be helpful.

That's realpolitik. All the other stuff you're saying (members of the voter pool 'has' opinions--like cheeseburgers?) is just silliness from people who are carping and have no intention of voting for her anyway.

Why should she "live with the consequences" if the "consequences" include losing two (Barack and Michelle) of the best crowd-pulling surrogates in the business? That might make YOU happy, but to anyone with any enthusiasm for my preferred candidate, that would be regarded as a really DUMB thing to do. She's just not going to dance for the people who won't vote for her, and the people who will vote for her understand full well why she has taken this course of action. She doesn't make the decision--it's out of her hands.

[Armstead]

167. You can say that about any issue. I give Obama a lot more credit than you do.

I'm pretty certain in the real world, President Obama is going to give his full support to whomever the Democratic nominee is.

No it's not President Obama she is trying not to offend. It's either he Corporate/Wall St. Oligarchs that she doesn't want to offend by taking a stand against it -- Or the people who don't want keystone she would offend by supporting it.

She is just too slippery, and her reflexive refusal to be pinned down on difficult issues that's the underlying problem.

[MADem]

229. It's clear that you want to continue challenging me about this, but I think I've been as clear as I

can be about what I believe is her view.

It's not about the classic meaning of the term "offense," it's about not bigfooting your former boss. It's a polite thing that people who understand protocol, rank, precedence at the highest reaches of government take seriously. It may not matter to you, but it matters to people who have walked those halls. Believe me--they know where they sit in the pecking order--and POTUS sits in the Big Chair. Make no mistake.

If you think she is just too slippery, don't vote for her. No one is trying to force you to do anything you don't want to do. You go on and follow your heart!

I'm no where near as sure as you are on Obama's support for the eventual nominee--if he's not feeling it, he'll do a token Hey and go on vacation. I don't think he'll bend over backwards for someone who hasn't worked within the party structure, who hasn't fundraised, helped candidates, served as a peer administrator/leader in the House/Senate, or stumped for candidates/recruited newcomers. It's a club--like it or not. And one candidate, who is a member of the "auxiliary" in that he trades his procedural votes for a committee ranking slot, hasn't done any of those things. Loyalty is a thing with that crew, just like the GOP. You can deny it, pretend it's not real, disregard it, but ... it is. It's why Hillary Clinton has already amassed a healthy clutch of superdelegates and Sanders has managed to corral ... ZERO.

I think the Democratic Party would rather let a Republican take the Oval Office, and work on knocking him out in four years, than hand the reins to Sanders. You might not like that view, but that's my honest take. I think all the money and effort will go to House/Senate runs, and we'll play the loyal opposition for four years when Sanders loses, as he likely would.

This guy has a very good track record (well before Nate Silver became a thing) at picking winners.

I think his analysis is accurate: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/democrats_2016_not_feeling_the_bern

Time will tell.

[Armstead]

231. Well what you say cuts to the heart of the system. And the system is f----ing most of us.

The clubiness has destroyed the underpinnings of our economy, alienated voters, fed the GOP machine and made the Democratic Party a eunuch compared to what it should be.

People get to Washington, get a taste, and go for the gold and power and forget where they came from. And prepare to feather their nest with lucrative future positions on Wall St. or with Corporate Lobbying firms or whatever. And they ignore the real issues in the process. Or, worse, they participate in fueling the dark side.

We have to find and work for different ways of doing things.

Whatever his faults or limitations, Sanders has avoided those temptations, and he's been in DC a long time. So -- at least until the general election season, I'd much rather put some passion into what he represents, than to settle for helping to set us up for another round of the same old, same old with a choice of two candidates who ultimately represent the same oligarchy.

[MADem]

233. It's not my job to change the world. I just want to see the best possible candidate, in my view

MY candidate, win the contest. I don't have the luxury of a half century to change the political landscape of the USA--and it will take that long, at least.

YMMV, obviously.

People who claim they want to change politics really need to get off their behinds and start running for local office. Everyone from every halfassed, poorly organized, We-Had-Our-Convention-In-Fred's-Rumpus-Room party wants to go straight to the BIG show and run for POTUS. They need to start running for school committee, city council, state legislatures, etc. Then, maybe, they'll get some goose. Until they do that, they'll always be powerless outsiders.

Sanders has been led into temptation, PLENTY. He and Lockheed Martin are besties, these days. There was a time when he called 'em the devil incarnate, but they've kissed and made up in a big way. That's why the worst plane in the history of the military is being stationed in Burlington...! Hey, it's a big old pork pie, and he wanted a slice--nothing wrong with that, everyone does it (you should see how Warren cozies up to Raytheon--but they provide a ton of jobs here in MA). But take off the purity rings, because Bernie's not a virgin by a long shot on that score. He's exactly like the rest of them. He knows how to wheel and deal pretty well for a guy from a teeny tiny state with a population the size of Boston. He got those lousy planes out of Lockheed, and he got a branch of Sandia Labs, too.

If they don't bring home the bacon, the voters will replace them with someone who will. It's very different in the Senate...!

[Armstead]

238. The bst way to ensure my side loses is for me to run for office

but aside from that...

You obviously believe Hillary is the best candidate. I think she's an example of the problem.

Okay we're free to disagree.

But when those people you disparage for not running for office, or aiming to head straight to the top do get involved, and work for someone like Bernie (who did exactly what you said people should do), they should be encouraged and supported, not disparaged.

[MADem]

240. I drive voters to the polls. Like I said, I'm on the back end of the course.

The world of the future is up to the young 'uns. At this point, my job is to grease the skids, do the small stuff, deliver the votes, do a little smiling and dialing if asked--I've had my turn in the barrel!

I don't "disparage" anyone for not running, but I will say this--you don't get in on the ground floor, and earn your access from jump, with an organization, supporters, a ground game and a strategy that goes state to state, don't complain when it's a hard haul climbing those stairs.

No one's going to give you a key to the elevator if you don't pay your dues--and by "no one" I mean the American people. They know a line jumper when they see one.

[Armstead]

243. I suppose this could go on forever but one last point

People work for change in many different ways.

Personally, I have reluctantly entered "old fart" territory agewise. While I have done my bit to chip in politically, my whole professional carer has been oriented to supporting efforts to address our problems. Been at it since the 70's, and am a mix of immensely frustrated at seeing a backward slide on many levels and somewhat optimistic at signs of increasing awareness and positive change.

I know a lot of people in the same boat. They are not "line jumpers" by any stretch, because they have been doing what they do for years. And as for young people in that movement. Impatience is the nature of being young. And many of them are doing the lowly work.

The fact that Bernie -- and the issues he is expressing -- is getting a bit of traction is what I see as one of those hopeful signs, whether or not he actually achieves the nomination (or beyond). I think it should be encouraged. I would just hate to see the Big Machine crush that drive to improve things because it doesn't fit into the stale template that has gotten us into this mess.

[MADem]

261. I'd love to see new voices in the mix--I just wish they'd get involved where it matters every day,

as opposed to every four years. School committee might not be a hotshot or glamorous job, but school committees set policies that educate children. Mayors who run towns can become legislators in state government and governors, and from there go on to DC. Alderman, city council, town council, village council--whatever! No task is too small to take on, and if one does well at it, they qualify for bigger things. Ya gotta have a resume, and supporters, and a network. With a network, which takes time to grow, no Big Machine will crush 'em. But if they continue to "line jump" every four years, without paying those dues, they'll never get any real traction.

I rarely hear about these alternative parties (Jill Stein....AGAIN? She's like a modern day Harold Stassen! She does run for everything--but it's like she's The Only One!!) except in Presidential contests--it's like they can't bother with the 'little stuff.' Maybe if we saw more Greens or Independents or whatever running for little jobs, we'd one day see more of them in bigger jobs. It's the only way they'll ever get established, but they've got to be willing to start early and work hard. In this Instant Gratification society, most people aren't in the mood to do the grueling work of establishing a new paradigm.

[azmom]

166. My view exactly. Voters need to know where

She stands on this important issue. I believe the main reason she won't, is because it will lose her primary voters. We Bernie supporters have to apply pressure To force her to be honest with the voters.

[kenfrequed]

156. Not by anyone that cares about the environment.

There have been far too many scientists that have come out and stated that this project is extraordinarily bad. This really is absurd, there have been many things Hillary has been attacked on that are kind of unfair and this isn't one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

128. It's a PUMA talking point, everyone who criticizes Hillary is "sexist".

Even the women.

[L0oniX]

208. "reality"? LMFAO

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. "There is No Win to opening her mouth. NONE." Man-oh-man truer words were never spoken.

That goes from now until election day.

[MADem]

30. I'm sure you thought that was clever, because, ya know, you don't like her and stuff.

In reality it just kind of, ya know, lowered your standing in this discussion.

But hey--knock yourself out!

[grahamhgreen]

192. She can't win Without rallying the base, and this won't do it.

[MADem]

206. Like Bernie can win without blacks, Hispanics and those women who want to see a woman in the White

House and who believe HRC's the most qualified.

Not sure what "base" you're talking about there--Sanders core is older, white, well-off and conservative. He is not a liberal, he's said as much. That's part of his appeal.

Time-- as it always does-- will tell, of course.

[TheKentuckian]

226. Her boss is and her loyalty should be first to the American people.

[MADem]

234. That happens after she takes the oath. Not before. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Now if that's not a

moment I don't know what is. I can't WAIT to hear what the defense/denial/justification/rationalization/minimization of this will be.



ETA: LOL! I obviously didn't read the responses to the thread before I posted this. So, rationalization it is, then.

[ibegurpard]

59. Oh it's smart

Who are you going to believe...me or your lying eyes?

that's the ticket...

[L0oniX]

209. Share?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

12. Yeah, that's gonna help her *likeability* ratings.

You go, girl!

[Cheese Sandwich]

17. I think she basically said she is for it...

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

She said it's Obama's choice and she was in the position to set it in motion which she did do. She was Sec. of State when the State Dept. commissioned that bogus impact study


Don't forget:
Hillary Clinton's State Dept. commisioned a study and hid that the authors had ties to Keystone XL Pipeline company Transcanada

A top expert who helped write the government's latest Keystone report previously consulted on three different TransCanada projects—a fact the State Department tried to hide.
—By Andy Kroll | Thu Mar. 21, 2013 6:00 AM EDT

Late on a Friday afternoon in early March, the State Department released a 2,000-page draft report downplaying the environmental risks of the northern portion of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would ferry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. But when it released the report, State hid an important fact from the public: Experts who helped draft the report had previously worked for TransCanada, the company looking to build the Keystone pipeline, and other energy companies poised to benefit from Keystone's construction. State released documents in conjunction with the Keystone report in which these experts' work histories were redacted so that anyone reading the documents wouldn't know who'd previously hired them. Yet unredacted versions of these documents obtained by Mother Jones confirm that three experts working for an outside contractor had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone's approval.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department

[MADem]

27. (Cough.) The Secretary of State executes policy on behalf of, and at the bidding of, the POTUS.

She's not a rogue wagon train, charging across the plain of global politics, making shit up as she goes along. He sets the agenda, she carries it out. That's how it works.

Any efforts she made in support of this effort were made at the behest of the POTUS.

[Cheese Sandwich]

34. Is that why she redacted the authors names on the impact report,

then it got leaked that they were pals of Transcanada?

The President told her to do it?

Just following orders? Since when is that a defense for high level officials?

Bad excuse.

[MADem]

42. She wasn't slaughtering Nazis in the Rose Garden for Obama--the "only following orders"

reference is lame as hell.

But of course there was coordination. Don't be foolish.

And you're going to have to point me to the "rule" that finds that redaction of elements of a working paper is somehow illegal.

What's a "bad excuse" is when you make up Nazi shit to try and prosecute an argument. It makes you look like you don't have a grasp of the issues and it also makes it look like you're trivializing a horrible war in which millions of people were executed. Real smooth, that!

[Cheese Sandwich]

48. oh. my. god

puhleaze...

She's not like some helpless McDonald's worker that just shows up at work and does what she is told.

It's not like she needed the job for the money. She is a multi-millionaire and a powerful government official. She was in a position to set it in motion and she did so. If she didn't like the President's policies I'm sure she could have left.

I remember when John Kerry came into office everyone was saying Kerry had no choice he would have to approve Keystone because Clinton had already agreed to it.

You're Nazi commentary is :ROFL: worthy. Just following orders is a lame excuse.

[MADem]

129. No, she's not, but she's also not Super SECSTATE who shows up at work and says

"Fuck you, Barack--we're doing this shit MAH WAY--and if you don't like it you can kiss mah ass!!!!" She works the issues within the context of the leadership goals of the chief executive.

It's not a complicated concept to most people. Not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.

And WTF are you even ON about with "needing the job for the money?"

I'm about done talking to you if you keep saying uninformed things like that.

People who work at the highest levels of government don't do it for the money. They do it for the opportunity to be of service to the nation. What an obtuse thing to even say....

Kerry is stinking rich, too, and he is married to the heiress of the Heinz fortune. Why aren't you crabbing about his wealth? Hmmmm?

And you need to learn to do something -- that you haven't apparently mastered yet. You need to learn to read the full thread before you shoot off a snarky reply.

I wasn't the one who came up with the halfassed Nazi reference you're falling all over yourself rofl-ing about--the genius who started mouthing off about that plainly Nuremberg reference, "Just Following Orders" (who was that, hmmm?) is the one that brought Col. Klink and Sgt. Shultz to the party. What post was that....34? Are you telling me that the author of that post doesn't understand that reference? Maybe he slept through 20th Century History in high school, and missed that whole Post - WW2 accounting of war crimes business?

Yeah. Whatever.

[Cheese Sandwich]

132. "Just following orders" is not a good excuse in the case of Secretary Clinton and Keystone XL

If you look at that sentence and decide to start talking about Nazis then maybe you need a nap.

[MADem]

134. Have the last word, now--it's obvious that you're out of your depth and have no grasp of US history.

I think the one who needs a nap (childish, much?) is you--you've betrayed your lack of understanding with that snarky post, above.

Here's a link for you, because you have a massive gap in your education that is staggeringly embarassing for you--I urge you to fill that gap as quickly as you can manage to spare yourself further difficulty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

The Nuremberg Defense has since become a political and psychological meme. The term is now essentially synonymous with the phrase "I was only following orders", a phrase that has been used in defending accused war criminals for centuries. The phrase can refer to any attempt to deflect personal responsibility for a crime onto institutions like an army or the state. Occasionally, the Nuremberg Defense is referred to as the Eichmann defense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

As I said, no point continuing on--you're saying things you just don't understand.

[Cheese Sandwich]

136. Oh boy...

I'm aware of the Nuremberg context of that idea.

But see, people are not necessarily invoking the Nuremberg context when they say that following orders is not an excuse in some other situation.

I am simply saying that if Secretary Clinton was promoting the XL pipeline at the State Department, following orders would not be a good excuse in that particular case.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Nazis!

You know who else saw Nazis everywhere?

[beam me up scottie]

137. "maybe you need a nap"

Or some perspective.

That was hillarious, I haven't seen a meltdown like that since yesterday.

Nazis...



Thanks!

[MADem]

139. If you think that was a meltdown you have a major perspective issue.

You can't read people, and you can't read contextually either.

Unless you don't know what the phrase means, either--and nothing would surprise me at this point.

And if you think cheerleading ignorance is "cool" well, you knock yourself out, now!





Poor Bernie...his biggest problem, by far, is the people who purport to speak on his behalf.

It's really a miracle that he's gotten this far...!

[Cheese Sandwich]

141. Cheers

Nazis

[Jim Lane]

147. More of the double standard from Clinton supporters.

She's the most qualified candidate for President ever, partly because she was Secretary of State, and look at all the good things she did in that job.

Except that, if she did something in that job that someone doesn't like, well, in that case the Secretary of State has no discretion on anything, but just follows the President's orders.

We see the same thing with regard to her role in her husband's administration. It's part of her overwhelmingly impressive qualifications, right up until someone mentions a bad action of the Bill Clinton Administration, in which case imputing that action to Hillary is sexism.

[beam me up scottie]

148. +1 bazillion

[JDPriestly]

111. Hillary's answer was, to paraphrase: The XL pipeline. That's Obama's business right now.

If he doesn't decide, then it will be my business once I am president. And just how I will decide once I am president is my business. Not going to tell you. Nahnee, Nahnee, Nahnee.

Hillary has to run on her own ideas and on her own platform. I don't think voters are going to accept the "Elect me first, and then I will let you know where I stand on the issues."

That is not going to work. Not on issues like the pipeline and the trade agreements. Not on net neutrality either.

People are not going to elect an unknown. Hillary needs to tell us where she stands on these controversial issues.

And Obama has to be man enough to deal with it. I think he is. I don't think that will be a problem. So far Obama has not said yes to the pipeline. He has said yes to trade agreements and many, many of us disagree with him on that.

Hillary has to find the courage to let us know what package we are buying if we elect her.

Her slithering away from answering important questions will not work in the debates.

[MADem]

116. And she's right--it IS his business, and he's her former boss, and she will be asking him for help

down the line.

Hillary doesn't "have" to do anything, just because you say so. She's running a smart campaign. You want her to dance like a trained bear so you can take potshots at her, but guess what? She's not performing for you, because you have no intention of voting for her, anyway.

If you think Hillary Clinton is an "unknown," that's one hell of a nap you've been enjoying since 1990 or so.

Obama doesn't have to be "man enough" (good grief--sexist much?) to do anything. He's the most powerful lame duck in the world. He can executive order his ass all over hell for the next year and a half, and do as he pleases.

Slithering? Really? Now we've got Adam and Eve and the Snake to play with ....

[JDPriestly]

144. I gather from you posts that you assume that Hillary favors the pipeline.

If she does, and her silent is telling us that she most likely does, then she will have to deal with the wrath of environmentalists and the many, many people for whom the XL-pipeline is a break or make issue.

And you are right, I am not planning to vote for Hillary under any circumstances and partly because a candidate who deserves to win would not hesitate to state where she stands on an issue as important to our country as that pipeline and would simply tell the truth without fear.

That she refuses to or cannot do that shows what she is and isn't. And I don't like what she isn't.

This is not an issue that she can avoid in this way.

There is another important aspect to that issue. And that is her relationship to the oligarchy, the owners and big investors in the big international corporation and the networks of those groups some of whom are her donors. Is her likely support for the pipeline yet another way in which she will repay them for support?

That's the way it is going to look.

Hillary would be smart to oppose the pipeline. And it would be best for America if all of the politicians opposed it. The risk of a dangerous spill from that pipeline is too big a threat to some of our best land. We just can't take that risk. Besides I think that Canada is getting that dirty oil out without the pipeline. The pipeline would not pay enough to the US to make allowing it through our country worthwhile.

[MADem]

219. No--exact opposite, in fact.

She was a total "token" on the Walmart board--a concept that many young people cannot contemplate but was a very real thing back in the day. She had no power, and her input was "limited" in that "Sit down and shut up, Little Lady" boardroom. She was able to make inroads in only a few areas. One was hiring of women. The other was what was quaintly called, back then, "conservation."

That said, she forced Walmart to create a one-off store that used low energy and natural light, insulation to compensate for heating/cooling, did recycling, used sustainable materials, etc. They got sick of her b-wording at them in meetings and. to shut her up, basically, they let her do "just one." This was years ago, before anyone was doing this kind of thing. Turns out it was hugely successful, and they now like to pretend they were ahead of the curve.

She likes the earth. She doesn't like pollution and filth. She's also not stupid. Iran has a shitload of oil, and they're coming off the Naughty List. Why go after something that is HARD and FILTHY and destructive to get at (shale oil via a pipeline), when there's a ton of stuff that's easy to get coming on market, from a country that's going to need help repairing and upgrading existing oil fields and refineries?

And it's not just Iran--Maduro of Venezuela will eventually fall on his ass. His friends in the region are abandoning him. His oil fields (sludgy shit, on a good day) are not operating anywhere near capacity because he can't repair his rigs. Why? He needs parts and he does not pay his bills. He also steals services from contractors by refusing to pay them after they do work for him. So no one will sell him stuff unless he pays cash up front. And he's got some huge cash flow problems--he is in debt to China up to his well-fed ass. Everyone knows that kind of thing never ends well. Hopefully his replacement, be he from the left or the right of him, will at least be able to balance a checkbook and will stop the worst of the graft, cronyism and corruption, so that the people of that country get a few cents on every dollar, instead of the Boligarchs.


In any event, there's plenty of oil available--the prices on the stuff are low for a reason. In recent years, I've never seen gas prices this low in the high (summer travel) season.

But she does herself NO good in opening her mouth and giving the media an opportunity to challenge her former boss based on any comment she makes right now. It doesn't matter if she hates it, or tolerates it--it's not up to her. Her input does nothing but cause a headache for the administration she served. She's not going to do that. Even if her opponents want her to dance to their tune--too bad, so sad, ain't happening.

If you think people are going to wait with bated breath for any pronouncement she might make ahead of Obama's resolution of this issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. No one cares, save a few people here on DU looking for ANYTHING to ding her on.

It's not unreasonable to note, too, there's a ton of alternative modalities coming on line that didn't exist before. You can go through neighborhoods that are dotted with solar panels on the roofs where none were before. Look offshore--they're there, too. Windmills are popping up everywhere. Wave technology is starting to come on line, too.

We're in the middle of a huge shift in attitudes, and how we power our communities--that pipeline is YESTERDAY. There are other ways to get power that don't require shitting on the environment, and will create more jobs, too. That's the way we need to go. She gets that, I think.

[JDPriestly]

228. I agree that the pipeline is yesterday.

I gather Obama does too in that he has not outright approved it yet.

Other candidates have taken a stance on that pipeline. I do not think that Hillary's reticence is due to concern about Obama's opinion, but then I could be wrong. In any event she is missing a big chance to speak out on an issue that is really yesterday. That pipeline is not needed, and we don't need that oil from Canada because it is so dirty.

I used to work for an oil company and agree that we will be changing to renewables before we know it. Germany is way ahead of us. Germany has no oil, and its climate is not ideal for solar energy, not even in the South, but it is doing it. That is what happens when a nation's people work together and achieve goals.

One of the reasons I support Bernie is that I think he has the best chance of uniting Americans to work together in that way. He is kind of an outsider and a very good person and strong and willing to be outspoken and lead. At the same time he is not overly bossy and aggressive. He is very human. I would like to see him become president.

I agree with your analysis on Venezuela. There are reasons for developing alternative energy that have nothing to do with climate change. The arrogance of some of the nations that happen to have today's oil and gas is understandable but not tolerable.

Funny thing. I live in Los Angeles -- east of the 5 freeway. When we go to the West side, as gas prices go up and down, the price of a gallon can be as much as 50 cents more over there on the "rich" side of town, the Beverly Hills adjacent side of town as it is here. Food is cheaper here too. I suppose it is the rent and the fact that people on my side of town simply cannot pay the inflated prices that are charged on the West side. We don't get the selection or the amenities, but we get low prices.

So to some extent energy prices are flexible.

Right now, gas is about $4 per gallon in our neighborhood. But remember, California has special air quality problems and therefore at times of the year a slightly different mix when it comes to gasoline. Depends.

[MADem]

232. Once this issue is resolved, it's done. The only people who care, as I have said, are

people who won't vote for her ANYWAY.

When gas prices go up, in odd places, look for LOCAL taxes to be added on to state and federal. Ask the mayor--it happens. If there is more than one municipal authority in your area, that can impact prices.

Also, if a gas station gets robbed a lot, or has to pay high property taxes, that can impact prices too--it's all "cost of doing business." And then there's the "Where else you gonna go?" model. That's why you pay twice as much for near expired milk in a "food desert" convenience store in the rough part of town. It ain't worth more, but no one else is selling it.

Gas is always pricy in CA--but it's way cheaper in the northeast, and cheaper still down south. Prices are on a downhill slide with Iran back in the mix.

As for HRC, she respects her former boss--she's not going to bigfoot him. She's not going to let the media try to sell it as if she shoved him to his conclusion. He is the leader. He has got to be seen as leading, not being pushed. It's not worth it to her, to put that tension up between her and her former boss over something they AGREE on and for an issue that will be totally forgotten this time next year.

Good for her. Loyalty pays off.

I like her approach better than Sanders. I think he comes off as hectoring and humorless at times. Certainly, Clinton can be stiff as well, but America has known her for twenty some-odd years...there's familiarity. Sanders does have a "grumpy" problem -- and unlike many Americans, I'm familiar with him, I've seen him in action often down the years.

But, all that doesn't really matter at the end of the day. People are going to support who they're going to support. One voter's 'grumpy' is another's 'human!'

[JDPriestly]

244. I like Sanders because he is not taking corporate money and is unafraid to tell the

truth about the excesses and lack of loyalty and patriotism on the parts of American corporations.

He doesn't like the trade agreements.

I don't like them either, primarily because of the international courts they establish which override the democratic processes and local and national courts. Very bad idea. We should not even be thinking about those arbitration courts that ultimately will intimidate voters from voting their beliefs, interests and consciences. And to have so many corporate advisers involved in the negotiations of those agreements??? How undemocratic can you get?

The damage that the banks did to American families and our local economies at a time when already thanks to technological advances and trade agreements, we are hurting in terms of jobs and our local economies is just unacceptable. The Occupy movement really hit a nerve with me.

Here in California in the years we have Depression legislation and a trust deed rather than a mortgage in most home sales. Not all but many houses are protected from a deficiency judgment in case of a default. Foreclosures that involved deficiencies in the housing market were not exactly rare, but not that common and any dispute over a foreclosure issue was pretty definitely going to end with the bank looking good and the homeowner looking foolish.

But somehow, and I think it started during the Clinton administration, my husband and I started getting offers of second mortgages and refinancing our loan. We refinanced but were both working and did not need a second mortgage. Some of our friends took the bait and got the second mortgage. It sounded too good to be true -- borrow against that house that is rising rapidly in value. What could go wrong?

Well, the Depression legislation doesn't protect the homeowner against a deficiency judgment on that second mortgage, that's what. Now I could be wrong about this. No one should rely on my statement as advice. But you can see that this is one of the reasons that I am so sour on Wall Street and the banks. What a scheme? Well of course maybe I am being unfair. Maybe the DAILY and I mean DAILY offers to refinance, get a second mortgage, etc. were offered in good faith and not to circumvent the Depression legislation, but how many actuaries and economists or just clever but unscrupulous businessmen would it take to reckon the potential profit on a scheme like that.

Hey! And if people refinance their homes (especially the baby-boomers whose loans were beginning to produce less interest revenue for the lenders as the baby-boomers all got into that late 40s, early 50s range in one huge crescendo where you are paying more on the principal than on the interest), they don't notice that their wages are stagnant.

I have friends who borrowed on their homes to keep a struggling business going or a child in school or simply to buy stuff advertised on TV. It was very sad.

So the Bernie Sanders message really speaks to me. I have friends who lost their homes, and that really hurts. Some of them also lost their marriages. It's still quite a mess out there. One of my friends held on and fought the foreclosure. She lost this year. It's very sad for a person in their 60s to be starting all over again in this economy. Very sad. And I'm not just talking about one friend. It's more than that.

I seriously doubt that anyone in D.C. knows what is really going on. As Elizabeth Warren found when she did her research, people do not want to admit that they have declared bankruptcy. But it is more common now than before. And the kicker to all of this is the revision of the personal bankruptcy code in I think 2005 which made bankruptcy more intrusive, less forgiving for individuals. I take it that corporations have it just as easy as ever to declare bankruptcy.

So you understand why I feel the way I do about Bernie Sanders and why in spite of his gruffness, I see him as the more human of the alternatives.

The banks got bailed out. Too many Americans got kicked out. That's my view. And it is heartrending.

I used to work with a homeless agency back in the late 80s, through the early 90s. It was mostly people of color. Today it isn't just mostly people of color who are homeless.. It's all kinds of people. And they hurt. They really do. And it is hard to raise the money to help American homeless populations. I know that because that was my job -- raising the money. When I meet homeless people today, I feel devastated by their plight. It has been more than 30 years since Reagan. And we still have such a big homeless problem. It's devastating.

I have lived in poorer countries. There are huge problems. But to see so much poverty (remember, I live on the "wrong" side of town in terms of wealthy Los Angeles) amid such lavish wealth as we have in Los Angeles is kind of sick. I certainly do not think that we can in any respect claim to be a "Christian" nation with this going on.

[MADem]

252. I don't doubt that the guy means well.

I just don't think he has the chops to make it work. Burlington isn't LA--I think running LA would overwhelm him. I think he's great on "generic" ideas, but he hasn't shown me how he gets from Point A (here and now) to Point B (his vision). He has said he wants to raise taxes on rich people--like they'll stand still for that! A couple of well-placed ads and they'll have even his supporters believing the absolute WORST about him--true or not.

And I mean, the silly little Robin Hood hats....eh, like his supporters are a bunch of Merry Men--I find that kind of thing marginalizing, somehow--like the opposite bookend of the Tea Party with their tricorner hats and tea bags hanging from the brims. It's just not a formed strategy he's articulating. It's more like a pep rally. What do we hate? This thing! What do we want? That thing! It's very feelgood, but it's not resonating with me. And he's so weak on foreign policy as to be close to nonexistent.

Warren is where she needs to be right now, working the bank issue. That'll get fixed eventually, even if Bernie stays in the Senate. She will get her piece of the pie on that score--of that, I'm confident. I'd love to see her as Fed Chair one day. I think she'd be superb.

I would hope that we are a secular nation that does the right thing for everyone, regardless of faith. We do have a ways to go in that regard. I just don't think Sanders, with all his heartfelt opinions, is the guy to get us there. I think if he got the nomination, he'd lose, badly. I don't see him as having structural party support, I don't see him sweeping up black and Latino voters (the latter would hold their nose and vote for Jeb! just to see Colomba as FLOTUS) and I think the party would as soon let him lose, put everything into House/Senate runs, and wait four years. I know this sounds cold, but it's an honest opinion. And of course, time--as it always does--will tell.

[azmom]

279. Latinos will vote for Jeb to see Colomba as

FLOTUS? That's quite offensive. Believe it or not, we are like you and other Americans. We Care about real issues not about who the FLOTUS will be. My god, it's insulting.

[MADem]

280. Creo que no--es verdad. Completamente.

You think this isn't discussed in the Spanish language press? Think again:
Columba Bush, la mexicana que puede ser primera dama de EEUU
http://www.infobae.com/2015/06/17/1735826-columba-bush-la-mexicana-que-puede-ser-primera-dama-eeuu

Muchas de las ideas de Jeb Bush sobre la migración a los Estados Unidos, que lo han enfrentado a otros miembros del Partido Republicano, se basan en la experiencia de su mujer. La vida con Columba lo ha hecho considerarse latino y convertirse al catolicismo. El clan politico familiar que la recibió con muchas reservas ve hoy que ella podría convertirse en la primera hispana que llegue a la Casa Blanca como esposa del presidente.

You need to find another thing to be outraged about. If you need a translation, let me know.

If given the choice between a guy who has HUGE gaps in his immigration portfolio and absolutely ZERO understanding/empathy for immigrants, children of immigrants, and the issues they face, and who comes from a state that treats Mexicans and Central Americans like shit (the few latinos in VT work in horrible conditions for slave wages on dairy farms--it's a real scandal, you should educate yourself on it), and a guy who has a Mexican wife, who bases his immigration policy on her experiences, who has stated in the Spanish press that he wants a path to legalization for undocumented migrants, and bilingual children (at least one of whom is presentable), who is bilingual himself (and completely fluent, too--unlike his "taco y cerveza" brother), who hits--right on the money--many of the "social issues" of interest to the latino community, who is 'catolico por la gracia de dios' and who lived in Mexico for a time--not just visited, LIVED-- they will take that half loaf. Make NO mistake.

If you don't think Columba--and Jorge P, who is getting better with his Spanish language skills these days--won't be assets to "Jeb!" in that community, you are whistling in the dark. So put the "offensive" away--it's the truth. Why do you think so many people think Castro would be a good idea on an HRC ticket? Part of the reason is to BLUNT "Jeb!'s" appeal to latino voters.

Here--read, learn:

http://www.diariolaestrella.com/2015/07/28/141481_jeb-bush-se-compromete-a-reforma.html
Jeb Bush se compromete a reforma migratoria si llega a la Casa Blanca

MIAMI – El ex gobernador de Florida y aspirante a la nominación republicana a la presidencia, Jeb Bush, se comprometió hoy a solucionar el problema de 11 millones de indocumentados y arreglar el sistema migratorio de Estados Unidos si llega a la Casa Blanca.

El aspirante presidencial, en entrevista con la cadena Telemundo, dijo que su plan es que esos indocumentados “salgan de las sombras y reciban un permiso de trabajar”.

“Pagan impuestos, una multa pequeña, aprenden inglés, no reciben beneficios del gobierno federal y salen de las sombras, reciben un estatus legal después de una temporada”, precisó.....Señaló además sobre la influencia hispana en su familia que “Columba es bien mexicana, orgullosa de su ciudadanía de este país, pero comemos comida mexicana en la casa, nuestros niños son hispanos en muchos de los aspectos”.

“La influencia hispana en mi familia es algo importante en mi vida”, dijo al citar en tono de broma que en su casa se habla más español “particularmente cuando mi primera dama esta enojada conmigo”.

You don't think Columba has been working that outreach for a while?
Think again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3089833/Columba-Bush-s-car-sports-bumper-sticker-declaring-Viva-Jeb-campaign-Presidente-2016.html

Read the Spanish language press. Watch Spanish language TV. Then get back to me. Or don't. Doesn't matter either way--I do read the Spanish press and watch Spanish TV--and I know what they are saying about this.

[azmom]

282. Not saying they are not making a play for the latino

Vote. Of course they are. Have you seen this:

[link:

|

[MADem]

283. And, as the link I provided illustrates, they are using "First Hispanic Primera Dama" as a hook.

It's not "offensive" if it's true. It's what people are saying.

As for that ad you have offered, it's paid for by THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

It's obvious who they think will be the nominee for the Democrats, and they are starting early.

[azmom]

284. This is what I have a problem with

Latino voters (the latter would hold their nose and vote for Jeb! just to see Colomba as FLOTUS)

That is an opinion. And as a latina, I find it insulting. Republicans will try to sway the vote by using His Wife. But, it won't work. We are smarter than that.

[MADem]

285. Do you want more links? I can give them to you.

I have Hispanic heritage in my family as well. Believe me, if I were wanting to insult, I wouldn't post an opinion that I have heard ALL OVER the Hispanic community.

If you are personally offended, you need to write to some of these news outlets who are touting the Hispanic Primera Dama theme, rather than blame me for pointing it out. You can't just pretend this isn't being discussed, and wave the "insulting" card--that and five bucks buys a cup of coffee. Es un tema!

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/06/15/actualidad/1434330736_633667.html

LA ESPOSA DEL CANDIDATO REPUBLICANO »
Columba, la mujer mexicana de Jeb Bush
Nacida en el Estado de Guanajuato, México, la esposa de Jeb Bush podría ser la primera hispana en ocupar el cargo de Primera Dama de Estados Unidos
El más latino de los Bush aspira a liderar la vuelta de los republicanos

....Más de 40 años después de casarse, Columba no parece haberse integrado en Bushland. Pero si su esposo, ese hombre de más de metro noventa, aspira a convertirse en el 45 presidente de la nación, Columba, pequeñita en su metro y medio, tendrá que reinventarse para ser la mujer de un candidato con opción a la Casa Blanca. Columba podrá usar su ascendencia para lograr acercar a los hispanos a los republicanos. Podrá usar su experiencia en el ámbito de los malos tratos y la violencia de género para dotarse de un perfil.

La mexicana Columba Bush, esposa de Jeb Bush, podría ser la primera dama hispana de EU

Ver más en: http://www.20minutos.com.mx/noticia/26781/0/mexicana-columba-bush/seria-primera-dama-hispana/estados-unidos-jeb-bush/#xtor=AD-1&xts=513356

http://www.abc.es/internacional/20150616/abci-columba-esposa-bush-201506151901.html
Columba Bush, la hispana que quiere ser primera dama de EE.UU.
F. DE ANDRÉS
Día 16/06/2015 - 13.30h
La esposa mexicana de Jeb Bush es la clave del excelente español que habla el aspirante republicano, converso al catolicismo a los 22 años de matrimonio

http://www.notimex.com.mx/acciones/verNota.php?clv=262202
Mexicana Columba Bush con oportunidad de ser primera dama de EUA

....Columba puede también hacer historia como la primera latina en vivir en la Casa Blanca. Hasta la fecha, sólo ha habido una primera dama nacida fuera de Estados Unidos. La esposa de John Quincy Adams, Louisa, quien nació en Reino Unido.

Please correct me if I am taking this the wrong way, but I am a bit insulted that you would imagine that I am throwing shade on the Hispanic community by pointing out what is being covered--quite heavily, too-- in Spanish language news outlets. I am not doing that--I am simply stating fact, and providing evidence to support it.

This is the tip of the iceberg--there's lots more where that came from. This is being shopped as a "plus" for the community.

[azmom]

288. Let me try again.

Okay. You stated that Latino voters "would hold their nose and vote for Jeb! just to see Colomba as FLOTUS". This is what I found offensive. This is not a fact. As your links show, people are discussing Jeb possibly getting these votes and winning. This is in no way evidence that it WILL happen, just that people are entertaining the thought. Media (including Spanish speaking media) entertains a lot of thoughts. I'm not offended by this.

But you suggest that Latinos in general would vote for Jeb JUST to see Colomba as FLOTUS, meaning (I think we would both agree?) they would be misinformed voters. This is why I am offended, and why I said we (meaning Latinos) care about real issues, not just the race of the candidates spouse.

I am happy to discuss these links you shared, but not under the pretense that what they say MIGHT happen, is fact.

[MADem]

289. That's what I'm hearing--so it's down to opinion, here.

Sanders will not win the Hispanic vote. He just won't--he has no appeal in that sector--his constituents are older, white, well off, and liberal about government programs, particularly ones that affect them. He's done no outreach, VT has a problem with the treatment of Hispanic workers that will (unfairly certainly, but no matter) affect him, and no one knows who he is. He'd need some high profile endorsements in the community and he's unlikely to get them. He just cannot pull it off.

The Hispanic vote will, overwhemingly, go to "Jeb!" if he is the nominee in a Sanders v. Jeb! match-up. That's just a given. Clinton can win the Hispanic vote--but by no means is it a walk in the park for her. She bests him by a few points, max. With the right VP in the mix (Castro) her numbers might improve.

They won't vote for Jeb! JUST to see Columba as FLOTUS, but that will be one key consolation--and it is not a SMALL one either. She is an ASSET. So is Jorge P. She would be the first Hispanic to live in the White House. She would only be the 2nd FLOTUS to be born outside the USA. She would be the first MEXICAN-American FLOTUS. The other consolations I listed, that Jeb! speaks Spanish, has Hispanic children, has an immigration policy that is to the left of most of the GOP, etc. are also considerations, but imagery and example are important. And there's nothing like a PICTURE. Do you seriously think that the victory of Barack Obama was greeted with "Ho, hum....and he happens to be black...." Hell no--it was viewed as a signature moment in American history. FLOTUS ain't POTUS, but as we've seen in the past three quarters of a century, the FLOTUS has a shitload more input if they want to have it. Ask the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, and the former SECSTATE running for POTUS. It's not an insignificant thing.

[tularetom]

75. So all she was was a bureaucratic functionary, rubber stamping documents at Obama's behest?

And she had no discretionary authority in the making or carrying out foreign policy?

If all that is true, what has she done that qualifies her to be POTUS?

1-1/2 terms as a senator where her most notable achievement was voting for the Iraq war resolution?

There is a whole cottage industry involved in attempting to convince the public that she is something more than what she is. Up until now it has worked fairly well, but I do know this about Ms Clinton - she doesn't wear well. The more you see of her the less you like her.

And its a long time until November 2016.

[MADem]

124. She certainly worked with POTUS in crafting policy--even policy she might not have personally

favored. She no doubt argued issues out with him--that's how good decision-making happens.

To call her a rubber stamp is, of course, a deliberate insult, and that IS what you were going for.

Your little constructs are lame as hell. If you think that pipeline was anything more than a single file in an in-box full of folders, you have no idea as to the scope of the job. Her 'role' in that issue had more to do with the fact that the thing was crossing an international border. If it started in a northern state and ended in a southern one, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Let's have some fun with your deliberately dismissive language, while we're at it:

There's a whole "cottage industry" that is attempting to convince the public that Bernie Sanders is something more than a junior senator from a 3 electoral vote state with scant association with the Democratic Party (and absolutely zero--count them, ZERO--committed superdelegates). He represents a teeny-tiny state with a population about the size of Boston, of mostly white people, many of whom are rural and old, whose dreams of single payer have been deemed unaffordable by the experts in his own state. He doesn't understand urban issues, he doesn't understand minority issues, and he sure as hell doesn't understand immigration issues. The deeper you dig, the less "there" is there. He's great within his little "dairy industry and a few F-35s for Burlington" wheelhouse, but he's not ready for prime time. And the more you see of him, the more he starts to sound like a querulous, humorless, windmill-tilting grampa.

The shoe does pinch on the other foot, doesn't it?

And yeah, it is a long time until November 2016--but trying to denigrate and dismiss the many achievements of SECSTATE Clinton is an act of desperation.

[tularetom]

169. You can't have it both ways

So SoS Clinton was a diplomatic superstar, flying between trouble spots to resolve conflicts, free the oppressed, and punish the oppressor, all in the interest of noble American democracy. Until the doo doo hit the fan and then she was simply carrying out the lame policies of Obama.

And you claim that her role in the pipeline was more or less ministerial, she only did what she was required to do, which was to rubber stamp the project and forward it to POTUS with no opinion or recommendation.

I'm not "desperate", I'd personally be just as well off with Clinton in the White House as Sanders. But I have kids, grandkids and great grandkids and I think what Sanders is proposing is far more in their interest than the pandering, platitudes and generalities I've heard from Clinton so far.

[MADem]

170. Sorry--I most certainly CAN. In fact, I am doing just that.

It's angering you, but you're not a Clinton voter anyway. You'd be angered by anything she does.

Apparently it's way too difficult for you to comprehend the nuances of a senior-subordinate relationship. It is dynamic, but the subordinate is ALWAYS aware of the trajectory of the goals of the senior--that's just how it works.

I can't give you the full course at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in a post at DU, so I won't even try. If you don't "get it," well, you don't get it. It's not something to be prideful about.

Being deliberately obtuse isn't a strong suit.

If you really like Sanders, you would do well to find more reasons to tout him--which none of his supporters seem to manage to do--rather than work so flop-sweatily hard at tearing down his opponent.

"Meaning well" is not a qualification for the Oval Office, IMO, anyway.

[tularetom]

171. I'll cop to a visceral dislike of Sec Clinton

She's so programmed, so fake, so plastic, and I don't think she's very smart.

I will concede that she will probably be the nominee, she has money, the party apparatus and 25 years of name recognition on her side. But I seriously doubt that she will ever be elected president.

But you seem a lot more interested in trashing me than defending her. You're wasting your time, I have neither the brains nor the desire to ever be president. Plus I'm even older and crankier than Sen Sanders. You'd do well to do a better job of promoting your candidate instead of tossing a lot of insults at her detractors.

I don't mind if you want to keep this up. I'm retired and I have nothing to do today but feed the critters and paint the shed.

[MADem]

263. I think you need to re-read.

I think you're a fine person.

The only thing I am "trashing" are your arguments. I objected to your CONSTRUCTS, and your understanding of a particular cabinet position, not you.

Look, I've worked the DC circuit, and I know how the game is played. I spent a career being a subordinate, then a senior, then both. I've dealt with senators, legislators, cabinet officials (and their insufferable assistants and under-secretaries) and members of the JCS. I know how those guys can put their finger on their number and make damn sure you know where they sit on the list. It's not Happy Families with those guys--there is a protocol, there is a pecking order, and there is a process that is usually very rigorous before you get things done. I also know that State is MASSIVE and COMPLEX in the extreme--it spans the globe and takes a lot of effort to manage well. It is not a "rubber stamp" job--it's the oldest cabinet position, and the "first chair" if you will. I objected to your characterizations because your remarks betrayed a lack of understanding of the role of the SECSTATE.


I don't get mad at people here on DU, and I don't trash them because that's just a mean thing to do--I will rebut the hell out of an argument, though!

[okasha]

18. Oh, horrors!

She doesn't think the President is a Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman.

Neither will she blunder into alienating a crucial part of the Democratic/Obama coalition.

[ram2008]

24. She has no leadership ability

Saying I'll answer your question AFTER I'm elected is a big gaffe and is a big failure, especially with all the trust issues she already has.

How would her having a solid position on Keystone alienate the Obama coalition? It wouldn't.

[winter is coming]

36. +1. Stake a position and live with the consequences.

The notion that "the Obama coalition" (defined how?) is going to reject Hillary if she disagrees with the President on a particular policy? There are no words. Apparently, some people still have not learned that a policy disagreement is not the same thing as a personal attack.

[okasha]

47. If you really need that explained,

re-watch the video of Sanders response to the #blm protesters at Net Roots-- and the response to that response across the net.

[frylock]

70. whut?

[beam me up scottie]

98. Wow, they're really getting desperate.

Hillary has a bad day and they start flinging feces everywhere.

[DonCoquixote]

104. translated

Do you think that all black voters are a monolith that will turn on Hillary? If so, would she not SUPPORT Obama who did Not sign off on Keystone.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. Aren't gaffes unintentional?

Everything out of her mouth is carefully crafted... she knew EXACTLY what she was saying, nothing unintentional.

[BainsBane]

54. She only ran the State Department

You don't know what leadership ability is.

Unions, jobs, is the answer to your question.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Prevent Defense.

The cause of about half the losses in the NFL since its inception.

[okasha]

37. Politics is chess, not football.

[ibegurpard]

142. then what the hell is Hillary playing?

[beam me up scottie]

186. Politics.

And we're not supposed to call it what it is because it's unAmerican or something.

[kenfrequed]

157. Politics is politics

It really isn't purely chess.

In politics it doesn't matter whether you make the best argument or not and there is no such thing as 'checkmate.' It is a popularity contest mixed with the worst aspects of pro wrestling with a little bit of poker (if you must have a game involved.)

It really isn't chess. Maybe Calvin-ball.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. "Her speech will be her interview." I've never understood that line of thinking.

If she wants my vote, she's gotta come and get it, plain and simple.

[jalan48]

26. Sounds like it's Obama's choice.

Perhaps he's waiting until after the primaries to ok it and Hillary's in on the deal.

[chknltl]

32. Butter up a POTUS or butter up the electorate?

Either way, I prefer mine without the butter thank you.

[99th_Monkey]

38. That's like when she said we "need to go beyond Dodd/Frank"

without saying exactly WHERE 'beyond' is, or what it entails.

It both dismissed Dodd/Frank as inadequate (so far so good),
and suggested that a re-instatement of Glass/Steagal would be
going too far somehow, while failing to commit to any specifics
whatsoever.

[azmom]

164. She knows it will cost her votes if she states

Her honest position on the matter. She is doing this on many major issues. Americans deserve better.

[mooseprime]

44. sooooo marie antoinette

if this is what a person is like during the courtship, what does that suggest to us about the marriage that follows it?
yech.

[Raine1967]

45. I really did not like that answer.

Honestly, it was the first thing that she said on the campaign trail that really, truly bothered me.

[Thinkingabout]

58. Is the decision on Keystone Pipeline going to wait until 2017 to get resolved? I

would think it will happen before then so Hillary will not be a part of the decision. What I would like to hear more of is Bernie's policies. If he sticks with the not going to give the policies to correct the issues Bernie is interested if he so "afraid" the current administration will use his policies then it would mean we would have to elect him to get the fixes. No, not interested.

[ram2008]

60. Bernie's position on this issue is crystal clear

“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline,” Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-attacks-clintons-climate-plan-not-enough-120738.html#ixzz3hFO0Ce00

[Petrushka]

61. "...WHEN I become president,..." ??

[glinda]

79. Nice! Perfect visuals for this.

[ibegurpard]

86. I actually like that

For real.
It's the most real thing I've seen of her so far in this campaign.

[fbc]

93. I've seen a better version of that .gif

enjoy!

[img][/img]

[840high]

143. Oh yes!

[Petrushka]

146. LOL

[L0oniX]

212. Become president? That's only a formality...

[Petrushka]

271. Just a thought --->

[NCjack]

62. I don't vote for surprise packages. nt

[NCjack]

64. I don't vote for surprise packages. nt

[Moostache]

67. No where close to an acceptable answer.

That kind of "slick Willy" bullshit non-answer answer is no longer a cute parry or political dodge. If she wants to run as a "name" and just expect support because its "her turn", then she will be justg as upset in September 2016 as she was in September 2008, and quite rightfully so.

[glinda]

80. You have got to be kidding. And people want to vote for this?

[azmom]

106. Can it have anything to do with the 1.6 million

Speaking fees.


WASHINGTON -- Two Canadian banks tightly connected to promoting the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States either fully or partially paid for eight speeches made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the period not long before she announced her campaign for president. Those speeches put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate's pocket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251479502

[jtuck004]

110. Cool. You become president, I'll decide whether to vote for you.

Well, I would except, President Sanders.

But, you know, if I was in the market I would sure think of you first.

[joshcryer]

114. Saudi's pumping cheap oil has killed it, most likely.

[restorefreedom]

122. i think we just saw her 47% moment

same level of arrogance and condescension. when her candidacy soon goes into freefall, this will be the clip played over and over.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

127. Not Good Enough, Hillary. (n/t)

[Enthusiast]

152. Honestly, as bad as XL is, I am more worried about the TPP at the moment.

Projects like XL will become all too common if the TPP becomes law. And they will get the tax payers to pay for those projects too.

Wake up, people!

[2banon]

174. Not to mention Taxpayers will be on the hook for the ultimate clean ups from spills etc.

I think that aspect gets up my rage meter just about more than anything else.

[Enthusiast]

178. +100%

[SusanCalvin]

154. Trust me..... nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

172. Joe Isuzu -- the Patron Saint of American Politicians...

&index=1&list=PLCRkFWhvWGbwC8KyTL8ZgmEMnAcPQmQP5

[SusanCalvin]

183. Oh, I loved those commercials!

I still remember the one where he offered a free house.

[Buns_of_Fire]

218. Me, too. We DESPERATELY need someone with a captioning machine

to interpret what they're saying. Or not saying.

[Sancho]

159. It's pretty common for members of an existing cabinet to avoid criticizing a sitting President...

and I'm sure anyone with a bit of political sense knows that...it was reported on NPR months ago that Obama, Hillary, and even Warren agreed to avoid open attacks on some on-going issues that they had worked on together in the past.

Meanwhile, Keystone is not a done deal, and it has plenty of Democratic supporters. If it can't get past an Obama veto, then being for or against it doesn't matter. Even though it's an obvious target for Bernie (he's not from an energy state, and he's not dealing with a big Vermont chapter of union members whose jobs are energy related). Bernie is typically simplistic. Of course, Hillary also understands that the environmental problems really require an international solution. Links below:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/afl-cio-urges-approval-of-keystone-xl-pipeline/article/2555805
AFL-CIO urges approval of Keystone XL pipeline

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka urged the new Republican-controlled Congress and the White House to get together and approve the controversial, long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline project, saying it would boost the economy.

"There are a number of economic issues and job issues that we want them to get done. That happens to be one of them. So the answer is 'yes.' We want to get every jobs issue that we can out and as many jobs created as we can to get the economy going," Trumka said in response to a question about the pipeline during a post-election press conference Wednesday.

It was the firmest statement on the subject that Trumka has made. The AFL-CIO has voiced qualified support for the project in the past but stopped short a full endorsement. Last year, for example, the labor coalition issued a statement supporting pipeline projects in general but did not specifically mention Keystone.

AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein explained that Trumka's statement "was a 'yes' to Keystone, but there are still a lot conditions we have" relating to project's environmental impact, worker safety and other issues.

Many here on DU remembers that "Ed Shultz was For the Keystone before he was against it!!" Ed's being a bit of a hypocrite on this issue to criticize Hillary, but he's trying to get in his "pro Bernie" shots on the way out the door.

Liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Tuesday cheered Barack Obama's veto threat for the Keystone XL pipeline. However, the cable host failed to mention his own previous support for construction. Schultz breathlessly opened his show by announcing, "We start tonight with very important breaking news. President Obama will veto the Keystone XL pipeline. If you voted for this president and you care about climate change, you have to be proud tonight." [MP3 audio here.] Dialing up the hyperbole, the anchor cheerleaded, "We still have a lot of power, the progressives do. The President has just cemented his legacy as one of the most pro-environmental presidents in American history." Schultz promoted his own coverage of Keystone, hyping, "We have followed this project nearly every step of the way for almost a year." - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/01/06/ed-schultz-cheers-obamas-veto-threat-forgets-he-supported-keystone#sthash.mBPMg1eZ.dpuf

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/here-are-the-9-senate-democrats-who-voted-for-keystone-20150129

Here are the 9 Senate Democrats Who Voted for Keystone

Nine Democrats voted in favor of the legislation. Moderate Democrats such as Mark Warner of Virginia and senators such as Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp who represent energy-rich states crossed party lines to authorize construction of the project, which has been delayed for more than six years.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/here-are-the-28-house-democrats-who-voted-to-approve-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-20150109

January 9, 2015 Twenty-eight Democrats voted with 238 Republicans to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline during a House vote on Friday.
Several Democrats who backed Keystone XL Friday are members of the House Blue Dog coalition, a group of Democratic moderates. Coalition Cochairmen Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, and Jim Costa of California sent a letter to the White House on Thursday urging swift approval of the project.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-energy-innovation/

Using excess oil profits to develop new energy technologies. Hillary Clinton proposed getting big oil companies to reinvest some of their excess profits to help reduce American dependence on oil. These investments – combined with the savings gained by repealing tax breaks for oil companies – could have directed $50 billion into a new Strategic Energy Fund geared towards researching and developing smarter energy technologies like more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and wind and solar power.

http://correctrecord.org/stemming-the-tide-of-climate-change/

Sec. Clinton launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which has 37 countries working to reduce methane emissions.

[WDIM]

176. Is there anybody in her base that supports the pipeline?

I dont know a single democrat that supports it.

The only people in Hillary's base that supports it are the wealthy pollution profiteers.

This shows a lack of conviction, if she were against it she would say so.

And being that one of her main advisers worked for transcanada lobbyist and lobbied in favor of the pipeline i think we know where she stands.

[AgingAmerican]

181. No spine

She used to have a spine. Not sure where it went.

[Maedhros]

190. She sold it to Wall Street for campaign cash.[n/t]

[George II]

187. Is that quote going to be posted every day from now on?

[grahamhgreen]

194. Just until she states her position.

[winter is coming]

277. Or says something even dumber. n/t

[ram2008]

242. I hope so

It should stay on the front page until primary season is over as a reminder of what people are voting for.

[LondonReign2]

188. I can't decide which is worse

A candidate who doesn't have the guts to give an honest answer?

OR

Her supporters rationalizing this by claiming she shouldn't give honest answers because it would be detrimental to her candidacy?

So you 've got a politician who lacks integrity, and supporters cheering on a lack of integrity. Oi.

[BeanMusical]

198. +1000

[grahamhgreen]

191. How clever.

[CanonRay]

195. I like Hillary, but I have to say

that is pretty gutless.

[polichick]

199. Chicken shit.

[BeanMusical]

200. Kick and R

[tblue37]

204. "I'm not gonna tell you what I plan to do if you elect me--'cause it's a surprise!"

adds up to expecting us to be cool with, as the old saying goes, buying a pig in a poke.

[NorthCarolina]

207. It's a "minimize your losses" approach. My guess is her team feels she would stand to lose more

by answering truthfully than she would by taking no public position on the matter whatsoever.

[RiverNoord]

210. Wow - she really did say that.

I had to look up the reference since there was no link, but she said it in Des Moines yesterday.

I am for Sanders, and I have had very serious concerns about Hillary Clinton for many years, but, wow, that's mindblowing. She could have said 'as much as I would like to give you a yes or no answer to the question, I have to be honest - it's a complicated matter, and I haven't fully worked out all the pluses and minuses to reach a clear decision. Yet.'

Instead, she said 'Vote for me and I'll tell you later. If I need to. But I'd really rather not tell you because most Democratic voters would probably not like my answer. Oh, and I WILL be President.'

For all of the bizarre stuff going on in the GOP clown parade, I can't believe that Clinton would be so incredibly arrogant. If she takes a position on a controversial issue that is nevertheless very, very timely, as well as directly related to her prior political experience, she might alienate some voters, so she not only dodges it, but takes all of the possible icing on the cake for herself too. I can't, in good conscience, provide my vote to such a person for such a major office. What would her positions be in a year - how about two, should she become President? How can anybody possibly evaluate her candidacy with respect to political positions?

[BKH70041]

211. Don't vote for her in the GE

If she's the nominee, and you're a Sanders supporter who is against "Wall Street candidates," then don't vote for her should she become the nominee.

It's really that simple.

Anything less than that screams to the world that you'll sell out your beliefs for "lesser of two evils" or whatever else comes along where you can convince yourself that you're still holding true to your progressive populists roots.

[LondonReign2]

268. OK

[truebluegreen]

214. ...

ETA: Keystone is the least of it, the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If we (our governments) don't rein in the fossil fuel companies and leave all the coal, bitumen, natural gas, oil--effin' everything--in the ground, it's game over for us and the life on this planet. Do you realize these companies claim as much in their reserves as has already been burned? And that this stuff is even worse?

Bloody fucking hell. We need a president who is willing to do more than settle for what's already been done. Another proud defender of the status quo is another nail in the coffin, and maybe the last one.

Bloody fucking hell.

[mike_c]

215. she cannot risk offending her corporate bosses....

eom

[Angry Dragon]

221. What a chicken-shit answer

[winter is coming]

227. +1. Not a good answer to make if you're trying to convince people

that you're not just another political hack.

[Alkene]

223. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

[Kablooie]

241. I think she'll probably win but I'm really tending not to vote for her.

[whatchamacallit]

245. What a pant(suit)load

She's just gonna slide herself under the White House door.

[libodem]

247. She supports it

Next question.

[GoneFishin]

254. I would not accept that answer from anybody. Not Bernie, not Elizabeth Warren, JFK or FDR.

But it is exactly what I expect from someone who may have already sold her soul in regard to these issues.

[jwirr]

264. Sorry Hillary that is not how it works. We select our candidate on what they think about the issues.

On the pipeline and TPP if you cannot say a simple yes or no then we are going to have to assume that the answer is you are for them. We are not going to make the decision who to vote for on personality this time we have been disappointed too many times when we tried that - this time it is the issues.

[Autumn]

276. I just keep coming back to your OP. It really is what is wrong with

American politics. How in the world can anyone expect a person to vote for a politician who says anything like this. What's worse is our vote will be demanded of us because ....democrat!!


It's not going to work.

[Zorra]

292. Meanwhile, serious people are hanging from bridges to protest fracking. nt

[L0oniX]

294. K & R