Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Steve Leser for VP! [View all]NealK
(1,869 posts)57. I really doubt that she would want anything to do with the guy who wrote this:
Steven Leser, in 2008, concluded that Hillary lied about her stance on NAFTA
Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm
In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that.
One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.
HT to Luminous Animal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=657650
Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm
In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that.
One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.
HT to Luminous Animal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=657650
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
173 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Very well said. I have 'hung out' also with the elite of the Dem party (it was a summer job
sabrina 1
Oct 2015
#131
You don't understand, and misuse, the word "hate." You insult those who have been victims of
morningfog
Oct 2015
#7
Here's the thing - I consider that Bernie represents what Democrats SHOULD represent.
djean111
Oct 2015
#104
He respected our party enough to run as a D and took plenty of grief from the far left for doing so.
PotatoChip
Oct 2015
#114
I appreciate the fact that he's respecting our wishes to not run as an Independent.
PotatoChip
Oct 2015
#123
I'm well aware of what he said, since you guys keep parroting that one line over and over.
PotatoChip
Oct 2015
#129
Hey, if a pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-H1B Visas woman can be a Democrat ...
Scuba
Oct 2015
#148
Sorry Nance, but in my opinion it's about principles, not party. You apparently disagree.
Scuba
Oct 2015
#166
So Bernie's principles are a moving target but Hillary has been consistent. Got it.
Scuba
Oct 2015
#170
Oh, after all this time being wrong I guess that she's used to the pain, it's just a mild annoyance.
NealK
Oct 2015
#164
The arc of progress is a far cry from starkly opposite binary states. Have a good weekend.
DisgustipatedinCA
Oct 2015
#47
That got hidden, so a jury of his peers at "Bernie Underground" told him in no uncertain terms that
Ed Suspicious
Oct 2015
#53
it's the rightwing debating tactics I"ve noticed and noted from DU thirdwayers
stupidicus
Oct 2015
#48
they also say we're the "loony left" and back GOP policies if it's a Dem doing it
MisterP
Oct 2015
#161
Seriously, Dan - we're defining "hate" as illustrating hypocrisy by recalling one's own
bullwinkle428
Oct 2015
#51
Yes! He would be perfect for Hillary's VP. I think this will be a first for me when I rec this OP
Autumn
Oct 2015
#55
If Julian Castro is not the VP nominee, then Steve Leser is a good second choice
Gothmog
Oct 2015
#56
What is it with people who were so virulently against one candidate in 2008 and now for in 2016?
Fumesucker
Oct 2015
#66
I disagree. And don't appreciate your unnecessary, over the top, attack on him. n/t
1StrongBlackMan
Oct 2015
#72
Showing my support in a jovial manner for a long-time DUer who the hate squad has recently decided
DanTex
Oct 2015
#74
Gotta watch out for those sarroguts. Is that like some kind of fish or something?
DanTex
Oct 2015
#89
Would he and Clinton be able to keep their ever shifting positions in sync? nt
Live and Learn
Oct 2015
#99
He's too busy cashing his checks from his Fux News appearances. Why would he give up
Exilednight
Oct 2015
#102
I agree. Go Steve. And I applaud him for being a serious national journalist and also
DanTex
Oct 2015
#139
I think the republicans would have fun with that. he's already written their ads for them
Doctor_J
Oct 2015
#153
I will accept any position to which Democratic nominee Clinton or President Clinton calls on me
stevenleser
Oct 2015
#172