General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Sirota: Clinton Isn’t Warren, No Matter What Her Allies Say
from In These Times:
Clinton Isnt Warren, No Matter What Her Allies Say
Despite recent claims by Hillary Clinton constituents that she aligns with Elizabeth Warren, a look at her track record proves otherwise.
BY David Sirota
Hillary Clintons political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. Theres just one problem: Thats not true.
Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clintons relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same.
Ask any so-called 'left' or 'liberal' critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree, said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper.
OK, fine. Ill take the challengethere are many differences between these two politicians.
For example, in her book, The Two Income Trap, Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bills provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage. ...............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17021/Clinton-Warren-differences
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I guess I was wrong.
At any rate, I agree with Sirota. K&R
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)NY times article on Hillary Clinton and the bankruptcy bill(s)...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)aligning with whom?
Warren on the issues
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
Hillary on the issues
http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
WTH?
BeyondGeography
(39,973 posts)That's how easy it would be for Clinton to brush this off, if it ever comes to that, which seems very unlikely. Warren was a registered Republican when Hillary was taking incoming from Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a not-so-small reason why the decision not to run is very easy for her.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Nice way to smear someone!
Regardless, who better to speak to those who need to change their minds than someone who has changed her mind!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Thanks for savin' me the keystrokes!
BeyondGeography
(39,973 posts)But, when asked, she hasn't.
Fred Friendlier
(81 posts)They have dragged the party so far to the right that even Nixon looks liberal by comparison. We should kick them back out and return to the glory days of Hubert Humphrey.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The problem is the party itself constantly lurching rightward. Not due to the nefarious influence if a small gribble of ship-jumpters, but because it is easy and profitable. it takes effort to take a stand. Taking stands can have expense. Why rock the boat whe nyou can float along and get showered with lobby money for "doing the right thing?"
And of course there's the problem that Democratic voters seem to have no concept of how to say "no." I've been watching this tide of stupid rise around us fr the last few years, this hyper-partisan "DEMOCRATS DO NO WRONG!" belief system that mirrors that of the Republicans... and it's dangerous. when you put party above principles, well, shit, why are you bothering with a party at all at that point?
PADemD
(4,482 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,973 posts)Warren was a registered Republican when she was 46 years old.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Maybe he'd make a good running mate for Hillary!
By the way, if HRC were anything like McGovern, I don't think so many of us here would be so skeptical of her.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You can play the "used to be" game in many different ways!
I also voted for John Anderson for president too, back in the days when Jimmy Carter was "born again" and Michele Bachmann was campaigning for Carter...
I would vote TODAY for someone like Carter in a heartbeat!
You can try to distract from what Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton have been doing today and recent years with this sort of distortion, but ultimately people will look at the issues and who stands with them.
When Ms. Warren grows up in Oklahoma, I cut her a lot of slack in the older days.
It's not about just which "team" they are on, but what they actually do for their constituency and the people in general.
BeyondGeography
(39,973 posts)it would be for Hillary to deflate Warren's would-be "real Democrat" status in a primary setting with the rank-and-file.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when he was young and doing things more that his Republican dad wanted him to do.
He acknowledges this, and any right winger would be a fool to try and tear down what Thom Hartmann is NOW in terms of what ideology he supports and who he supports in politics.
I think it would be a similar loser's play if Hillary's campaign or others tries to tear down Warren's past as a "Republican". Walmart board member Hillary has so many more skeletons in her closet that are a lot harder to defend than Warren has. And people can see how much more vocal Warren is about trying to make the government and the banksters more accountable to the American public.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She is the Messiah...the one who will deliver us from the darkness.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...gets to complain that another person "probably" voted for Reagan? Is that how it works?
BeyondGeography
(39,973 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...one would be foolish to believe she voted for a Democrat the first time around. I'm sticking with "she probably voted for the Republican candidate" as soon as she was eligible to do so.
Ha ha, bet you had to look that up before replying!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)She campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968, the first year she was eligible to vote.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Your skewed logic not withstanding, H. Clinton represents Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street and she doesn't care who knows it. If you love Wall Street running the country, you'll love H. Clinton-Sachs.
H. Clinton-Sachs betrayed Democrats, Americans, especially our troops, the world and the Iraqi nation when she bowed down to Georgie the Boy King. I will never forgive her that (along with others, of course).
If you want Jeb to be president, nominate H. Clinton-Sachs.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Although her supporters here will never admit that.
BTW, Hilary has flaws, too, in case you're going to jump on me for that!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)She has a huge flaw in her position on I/P, although, admittedly, it's one shared by virtually every elected member of both parties.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Israel could do something a tad differently, he/she will be sorely disappointed.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)aspirations...or even wanting to stay in office, in most places, it would be political suicide.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)playing right now ...if it is a role. It may be that Warren is a tool to show a false inclusiveness of populists in the Dem party so as to keep Dem voters in the fold ...and it wouldn't be the first time the idea of the good cop bad cop was used either.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)the notion of someone manipulating events behind the scenes is ludicrous!
"I am not a member of any organized party I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)at who is giving money to whom. Crowning a nominee for 2016 partly because she has all the big money tied up is not a good step.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)I don't want Democrats to be at each others' throats, but if any Democrat keeps their dissent to themselves, then they are not really dissenting. If they decide the best thing to do politically is to support a corporatist candidate, then it's fair to call that a corporatist position.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I have ask several times who has the very deep pockets to support a candidate through a presidential race. Just to put some light on campaign cost, Warren spent $42 million on her run for senator. Multiply this times 50 states. As yet I have not found anyone to step up to the plate and donate the funds. This leaves a great portion of the needs being donated by corporations.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Maybe miracles do exist.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Maybe you'll be happier when the last few liberals are completely silenced
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)JaydenD
(294 posts)There is a lot of misinformation out there, and most likely purposeful, to paint Hillary Clinton as some caring and fair minded progressive, which she is not and has not ever been. Her carelessness with her votes (IWR) and with some of the things she carelessly blurts out are just two samples of what a true progressive is not.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)agrees with HRC. This issue draws pretty stark lines between real dems and the turd way
LiberalLovinLug
(14,353 posts)It worked so well last time with the progressive sounding senator Obama, who once got into the running with all those liberal votes bumped further to the right, then once elected, bumped even further.
Hillary has it made. She has this "change and hope" Democratic voice in Warren to sweep ahead and secure the liberal vote for her. And once elected she can do what Obama could never do, and that is say she never said she agreed with the kind of 99% policies Warren espoused. As long as she keeps her mouth shut no one can hold her to what some other senator said. Some senator that will be marginalized, ie. Howard Dean, once Hillary ascends the throne.
antigop
(12,778 posts)totodeinhere
(13,250 posts)office for 1 1/2 years. So Clinton has had more time to acquire baggage. Lets see how Warren stands after she has been subjected to tough votes for eight years.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)David Sirota doesn't like so-called centrists. We get it. He's made it abundantly clear. And if he'd stick with facts and avoid the slime-ball tactics, I'd have a lot more respect for the guy. But as it is, he's never been one to walk the straight and narrow when it comes to writing.
There was that really odd attack on Senator Clinton in 2007 after one of the Democratic debates. Here was the line from then that so infuriated Sirota:
(Laughter first from the audience, then from Hillary]
Clinton: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. That sort of is a vague memory.
Here, Senator Clinton was obviously making a quip about Perot's debate with Gore and his use of charts. But how did Sirota react?
Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA or Hillary Clinton, Sirota's reaction was way off the mark - either intentionally or unintentionally. Either way says much about Sirota.
Matt Yglesias called out Sirota's creative spin on reality in a thorough debunking of a piece he wrote on 'centrism.' Again, regardless of how you feel about the subject matter, it's clear Sirota simply didn't know what he was writing about:
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html
I seem to recall some (ahem!) creative interpretations Sirota made of statements from President Obama back in the day as well. And if I wanted to spend the time, I could did up more misleading pieces by him.
So that's why I wasn't surprised at Sirota's little jab at Clinton here. I mean, all this has been debated thousands times on DU but he broke new ground here with his inclusion of Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321334
quoting: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17021/Clinton-Warren-differences
Typically, Sirota either didn't dig deep enough or left off some pertinent Warren information to better influence progressive minds. It only took me 30 seconds of Googling to find this from a 2007 PBS interview between Maria Hinojosa and Elizabeth Warren
And she at that moment said, "Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen." It gets passed in Congress and Bill Clinton, because of Hillary's conversation with you more or less, vetoes that bill. Now we fast forward to Senator Hillary Clinton, bankruptcy law comes for a vote and she votes for it?
WARREN: Yes.
This excerpt was quoted and posted a lot at the time - not as any statement on Warren because none of us knew who she was back then. Rather, it was meant damning evidence of how Senator Clinton has changed.
But Warren made a clarification in that interview and gave, in my opinion, some very insightful information about working in Washington that we already know:
Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure positionas Senator a couple of years laterwhen the bill came up once againSenator Clinton was not therethe day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it. II tell my story not to try to thump Senator Clinton but the story is important because it's a reminder of how money talks in Washington.
Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:
I also want to add Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - both times - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
As a side note, Joe Biden not only voted for the 2005 bill, he rallied around it.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Ear
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That's all you really need to know about Hillary.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)We can now credibly hold her to that standard and the press can more credibly question who she brings to her team and her policies.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)has betrayed the trust of those wealthy backers to help middle class Americans.
What is tragic is it shows how little actual voters and activists matter to politicians like her anymore--at a time when you would think she needs prove herself to us, she is not only ignoring us, but essentially giving us a big FU.