HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Praises G...

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:29 AM

 

Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise

The former Secretary of State avoided her email controversy in one of her last speeches before she is expected to announce her presidential bid

Hillary Clinton took respite from the swirling controversy over her email use as Secretary of State during an address at a summer camp conference on Thursday, where she criticized the bipartisan divide in Washington and touted her own ability to work across the party aisle.

“We’ve lost the essential role of relationship-building and consensus-building,” Clinton told the crowd gathered in an Atlantic City, New Jersey convention center. “When I was in the Senate, I realized that I might be opposed to someone’s bill today, and working with that person tomorrow.”

“I did a lot of reaching across the aisle working with people who had a lot of political differences with me,” she said.

Clinton recalled the days after 9/11 when as a Senator from New York, she lobbied President George W. Bush in the Oval Office for aid to New York. “President Bush looked at us and said, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘We need $20 billion to rebuild New York Mr. President.’ And he said, ‘You got it.’ I will never forget that,” Clinton recalled.

<snip>

http://time.com/3751227/hillary-clinton-george-bush/

gratuitous praise of W. for repuke consumption- not to mention this has nothing to do with the "art of compromise".

208 replies, 14038 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 208 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise (Original post)
cali Mar 2015 OP
pscot Mar 2015 #1
Autumn Mar 2015 #2
Octafish Mar 2015 #13
roguevalley Mar 2015 #14
eggplant Mar 2015 #25
hedda_foil Mar 2015 #50
LiberalArkie Mar 2015 #112
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #175
Broward Mar 2015 #190
treestar Mar 2015 #3
OKNancy Mar 2015 #5
treestar Mar 2015 #6
cali Mar 2015 #16
MineralMan Mar 2015 #20
cali Mar 2015 #34
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #41
A Simple Game Mar 2015 #89
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #86
Badass Liberal Mar 2015 #100
NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #149
Jon82 Mar 2015 #44
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #200
namastea42 Mar 2015 #4
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #15
awake Mar 2015 #68
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #82
awake Mar 2015 #87
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #97
awake Mar 2015 #105
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #203
cheapdate Mar 2015 #151
Scootaloo Mar 2015 #201
yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #156
awake Mar 2015 #178
MineralMan Mar 2015 #182
awake Mar 2015 #185
Scootaloo Mar 2015 #202
MineralMan Mar 2015 #7
still_one Mar 2015 #12
MineralMan Mar 2015 #17
treestar Mar 2015 #65
MineralMan Mar 2015 #92
cali Mar 2015 #18
still_one Mar 2015 #29
cali Mar 2015 #39
still_one Mar 2015 #64
treestar Mar 2015 #66
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #99
treestar Mar 2015 #108
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #120
treestar Mar 2015 #130
cali Mar 2015 #181
asjr Mar 2015 #157
treestar Mar 2015 #63
G_j Mar 2015 #183
treestar Mar 2015 #192
G_j Mar 2015 #204
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #37
cali Mar 2015 #42
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #47
cali Mar 2015 #51
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #56
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #196
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #104
treestar Mar 2015 #69
Andy823 Mar 2015 #90
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #22
MineralMan Mar 2015 #24
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #32
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #52
MineralMan Mar 2015 #57
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #62
MineralMan Mar 2015 #102
zentrum Mar 2015 #27
treestar Mar 2015 #72
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #114
MineralMan Mar 2015 #150
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #158
MineralMan Mar 2015 #160
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #164
MineralMan Mar 2015 #171
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #173
treestar Mar 2015 #193
MineralMan Mar 2015 #206
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #8
zeemike Mar 2015 #21
still_one Mar 2015 #9
tularetom Mar 2015 #107
yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #165
tularetom Mar 2015 #191
RiverLover Mar 2015 #10
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #19
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #23
treestar Mar 2015 #75
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #11
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #28
yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #166
zeemike Mar 2015 #31
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #40
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #45
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #59
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #128
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #132
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #139
treestar Mar 2015 #143
yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #170
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #60
bvar22 Mar 2015 #199
treestar Mar 2015 #77
zeemike Mar 2015 #110
treestar Mar 2015 #113
zeemike Mar 2015 #122
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #136
treestar Mar 2015 #138
zeemike Mar 2015 #141
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #153
zeemike Mar 2015 #179
JonLP24 Mar 2015 #106
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #154
zentrum Mar 2015 #26
hibbing Mar 2015 #30
One of the 99 Mar 2015 #33
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #35
cali Mar 2015 #43
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #46
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #48
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #54
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #61
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #67
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #119
RiverLover Mar 2015 #70
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #124
treestar Mar 2015 #81
treestar Mar 2015 #79
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #115
treestar Mar 2015 #117
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #121
treestar Mar 2015 #133
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #137
treestar Mar 2015 #140
treestar Mar 2015 #78
morningfog Mar 2015 #186
cantbeserious Mar 2015 #36
closeupready Mar 2015 #38
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #49
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #53
Oilwellian Mar 2015 #123
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #55
RiverLover Mar 2015 #84
cali Mar 2015 #152
hedda_foil Mar 2015 #58
cheyanne Mar 2015 #71
Geronimoe Mar 2015 #73
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #74
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #76
leveymg Mar 2015 #80
LittleBlue Mar 2015 #83
RiverLover Mar 2015 #91
NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #127
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #134
NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #142
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #169
closeupready Mar 2015 #184
2banon Mar 2015 #85
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #88
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #111
Dustlawyer Mar 2015 #93
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #109
Badass Liberal Mar 2015 #94
eridani Mar 2015 #95
JonLP24 Mar 2015 #96
Scuba Mar 2015 #98
awake Mar 2015 #101
Post removed Mar 2015 #103
Oilwellian Mar 2015 #129
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #148
NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #116
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #126
msongs Mar 2015 #118
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #188
Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #125
heaven05 Mar 2015 #131
KansDem Mar 2015 #135
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #144
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #155
TRoN33 Mar 2015 #145
NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #146
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #159
NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #162
NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #163
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #147
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #161
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #167
Zorra Mar 2015 #174
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #195
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #168
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #172
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #176
treestar Mar 2015 #194
TransitJohn Mar 2015 #177
guillaumeb Mar 2015 #180
glinda Mar 2015 #187
Baitball Blogger Mar 2015 #189
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #197
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #198
peacebird Mar 2015 #205
WillyT Mar 2015 #207
JEB Mar 2015 #208

Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:32 AM

1. Woot! Bipartisanship!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:33 AM

2. Yay! More reaching across the aisle! Here's an idea,

we all become republicans that way we can water their platform and values down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:56 AM

13. It'd be great for our political careers.

Like Speaker Sam used to say: "To get along, you got to go along."

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:56 AM

14. oh god. can she be more tone deaf to what she is supposed to be? But then, her hubby is

a son of the bushes or so they say at every opportunity so I guess she's being a dutiful 'sister-in-law' at best and a clueless tool at worst. Praising a bush is the end of it all for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM

25. I think it is called "reaching around the aisle." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:22 AM

50. DUzy!!

Okay, I know there's no more official DIzzy but if there were...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:22 AM

112. I have thought of that. That is what the tea party did, and the religious folk did.

But at the same time I thought that it would take less effort to let them take the 2016 presidential, house and congress. I feel that after 4 years that it would be many years before they would even win a race for dog catcher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:06 PM

175. Centrists should go back to the Republican Party. Their only purpose as Democrats

is to keeping moving both political parties to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #175)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:30 PM

190. This is exactly right. They're complicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:34 AM

3. Right after 911 aid for New York

would not be hard to get out of Dubya. What's the great across the aisle accomplishment there?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:38 AM

5. Heaven forbid a Senator from NY cajole a Republican for some much needed money


Plus working "across the aisle" is what most people want... not DUers but the voting public likes those words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:43 AM

6. Like Chris Christie and Obama after Hurricane Sandy

There are times when it's easy.

With these Tea Party scum, it's hard to get anything from across the aisle as they are so unreasonable. Not much more than resolutions and such!

I think was Hillary meant there had to do with what you can do, not that she is going to move right to accommodate them as some of the posts seem to infer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:57 AM

16. what is the point of praising W.? and for what? this has nothing to do

 

with compromise. this is reaching out to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:01 AM

20. So, you don't think there was a need for federal funding after 9/11?

Really? You've chosen a very strange thing to use to attack Hillary Clinton, this time. The entire nation wanted to help NYC at that time, both Democrats and Republicans. It wasn't even a compromise. It was something that was definitely needed.

Very weak, cali. You can do better, but maybe there wasn't any news you could find that actually demonstrated something bad Hillary did. Keep looking. I'm sure you'll find something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM

34. one more time: we're talking about a speech she gave the other day

 

and her praise for Bush.

Weak, m&m. This isn't about funding for NY (hardly ever in doubt). It's about her frequent reaching out to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:12 AM

41. That's why she appears self-serving!

MineralMan: It wasn't even a compromise.
It was something that was definitely needed.


In essence, she was superfluous.
EVERYONE would have done the
exact same as they did,
Hillary or no Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:56 AM

89. So you don't think Bush would have given federal aid to New York City if Hillary

hadn't asked? He was probably going to give 40 billion until she asked for 20.

If that is the best example she can come up with for working with the other side then it is just one more reason she should never be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:53 AM

86. Gosh, I think pointing out that W would do that which current Republicans refuse to do paints

 

the current GOP as even more unreasonable than Bush, and not just Bush, but Bush dealing with Clinton, a known animosity exists. Bill beat Poppy, Poppy's people do not like that.
If I, as part of my criticism of that pop star who calls people 'fag**ts', said 'even the Pope would not say that' I am not praising the Pope, I'm saying 'Even a giant bigot like the Pope, clearly anti gay, would not sink so low as to engage in the use of slurs'. It's saying 'you are worse than even very bad people'.
It's called a backhanded insult. 'Even your corrupt idiot hero was not this stupid'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

100. She didn't praise him.

 

That seething Hillary-hate might affect your health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:18 PM

149. Where is the “praise”? I see none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:16 AM

44. Part of the problem is lack of compromise

I am not saying that anyone should abandon their values and pretend to support what they are adamantly against but without compromise things will only get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:22 PM

200. Hillary won't be my first choice...

 

but I, too, am failing to see the problem here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:37 AM

4. Hillary, striving for that Warm, Purple Place

 

Where everything can be compromised and triangulated and the blues give even more stuff up to the reds to make that nice purple she likes. I think this is one of the most damning pieces on Clinton yet as it tells us all point blank what she plans to do to us all.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/02/24/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-place
Hillary's "Warm Purple Place"
Clinton hints she's still most comfortable as a centrist.

Hillary Clinton says if she were to become president, she'd strive to fuse red and blue America into "a nice warm purple space where we're trying to solve problems."

Clinton's comments at a women's conference in Silicon Valley on Tuesday afternoon are a slight indication that the former secretary of state already has one eye trained on the 2016 general election before she's even announced a campaign to seek the Democratic nomination.

How Clinton will position herself ideologically in a likely White House bid is one of the largest questions she's confronting as she seeks counsel before an official announcement.

Even without the threat of a formidable primary opponent, liberals are hoping to pressure Clinton to gravitate toward the left as she builds a governing agenda. But the embrace of "purple" America suggests she remains most comfortable in the center, embracing common sense, collaborative ideas that aren't polarizing. With a 45-point lead over the primary field in the latest CNN survey, Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to namastea42 (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:57 AM

15. I'm sick of this shit! Hillary once again proving why she's not ready to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Can't we do better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:37 AM

68. Yes we can! We can do better it is 2015 not the 90s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:50 AM

82. Do you think Warren is ready to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Yes we can do better,

we can go with the candidate who is experienced in on many issues. Warren is good in her field of expertise but even she knows she is not ready for the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #82)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:54 AM

87. What about Joe Biden

Or does it need to be a woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:03 AM

97. Did I say it needs to be a woman? I look for qualifications, and yes Joe Biden is qualified.

He has lots of foreign experience, he deals as well as possible with Congress, he knows the ropes in the Senate. We need a candidate who has lots of foreign experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #97)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM

105. Our party can only do better in 2016 with Joe in the race with Hillary

The issues can be talked about in debates and America will see how great each of our candidates are like the last time when the primaries brought out the best ideas. With out a good fair fight for the nomination our candidate may suffer in 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #105)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:16 PM

203. I do not have a problem with Joe Biden or others getting into the primaries, I don't

Want a GOP clown show. I actually a primary, it allows the candidates to speak, gives free media time and an opportunity to let voters know where our DNC candidates stand on the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:21 PM

151. I like Joe Biden.

He's a Democrat, which means we share at least some values. He voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an effort to shed the Democrat's "soft on crime" image, he pushed the party to the right on issues of crime and law enforcement during the 1980s.

Biden is a centrist. Like Hillary, he's not going to radically change the structure of society, government, or the economy.

A radical candidate isn't going to win the United States presidency in 2016. The choice will be between a Republican and a Democrat, and I'm voting for the Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #82)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:04 PM

201. I know that Clinton isn't who we need in 2016

 

I don't know who would be best of the options, primarily because we don't know any of the options yet. But we need progress. At best, the best case scenario, Clinton is stasis, staying right where we are - and if you're happy with where we are as a country, as a party, as a movement... well, more power to you I guess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:33 PM

156. Well who can win in the General?

 

Keep in mind we are finishing an 8-year Democratic Presidential administration and the voters seem to like going back and forth so our candidate must be able to get the voters out for another Democratic 4-years. Who besides Hillary can do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #156)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:16 PM

178. Joe Biden

He not only can win he can finish the job that he & Obama started, look at how far we have come in the last 6 years. He is a open book and it will be hard to find any thing to attack him with. Joe will look out for every american not just Wall Street Banksters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #178)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:36 PM

182. Joe Biden will be called a centrist or corporatist, just as Obama is.

Trust me; he will not be accepted by some, any more than Hillary will be. That is true of most people who might be viable general election candidates.

Don't expect broad support for Biden from those who are pushing for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. It won't be forthcoming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #182)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:55 PM

185. I was responding to the question "Well who can win in the General?"

I feel he would get more support in the General even enough to take beck the House and Senate. His only problem is he does not fit the press story line he just a solid guy who will get the job done with out the Drama of HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #156)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:08 PM

202. Anyone who runs.

 

Mitt Romney was the Republican's best hope for a 2016 contest, and they gunned him down. Who's left? Rand paul? Jeb Bush? The Republicans have a lot of hopefuls who have no hope. It's more of a clown car over there than it was in 2012, and that's saying something!

it's our field to dominate next year, our election to win. We need to make the most of it, rather than looking for ways to capitulate. because the republicans' best shot of winning 2016 is if democrats field someone who runs as a centrist Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:45 AM

7. Well, the example she gave was of getting GWB to cooperate.

It wasn't an example of her compromising. So, maybe I'm not getting your point here. Most of what happens in Washington involves some compromise. I can't see where she compromised any principles in her example. NYC did need federal help at that point. If you're somehow trying to object to Hillary, you chose a poor example, in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:55 AM

12. amazing isn't it. Her job was to help the state she was representing, and she is being criticized

for that. There is really a no win situation with some folks.

The same thing has been going on with Obama. It is damn if you do, and damn if you don't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:58 AM

17. It seems to me like some people are looking for anything they

can find to blame Hillary Clinton for something. This example was an especially poor choice, since it only illustrates that she was doing the job she was elected to do. I don't think anyone questions the need at the time for NYC to get some funding from the federal government.

It's sad to see this on a site called Democratic Underground, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:35 AM

65. Well she actually spoke to that Evil George Dubya Bush!

She should have understood her constituents would rather suffer than be associated with such an Evil War Criminal!



But that does seem to be the attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #65)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

92. It's pretty amazing, I think.

She was a Senator. Senators sometimes actually speak to Presidents, even Presidents of the opposition party. Awful. For the life of me, I can't see how the story related in the OP is in any way negative for Hillary Clinton. Same thing with people bringing up Monica Lewinsky. I thought Hillary showed amazing strength and forbearance during that sad fiasco. I can't imagine thinking it reflects negatively on her.

Any port in a storm, though, I guess. I'm still waiting for the Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell, and Huma Abedin posts on DU. They will come. Anything will do when you have a mission, I suppose. It's a strange time on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:59 AM

18. bzzzt no. I am criticizing her for the gratuitous praise of W.

 

It's much like her praise of Kissinger. It's like she's so sure of the nomination, she's already running a general

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:07 AM

29. right. you want money for your state so she should have insulted the President who could facilitate

access to it. Makes perfect sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:11 AM

39. that's ridiculous. You don't seem to grasp that the absense of praise is not

 

synonymous with insulting. It's very basic stuff. Let me explain just for you, very simply. Had Hillary not gratuitously praised the little fuckwad war monger bush- something she has a habit of doing- she would not have been obligated to insult him. She had no need to mention him at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:34 AM

64. this is a real big issue for you, is laughable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:36 AM

66. Can't we praise him when he did right?

We are often accused of blind cheerleading for President Obama, and warned that he deserves some criticism. It's equally blind not to praise Dubya on the rare occasions where it is called for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

99. And yet when I question your praise of the Pope, a bigoted anti choice activist, you say 'So sue me'

 

The Pope does insult LGBT people, you say you love that Pope, challenge others to sue you over this devotion to a man who says LGBT people 'disfigure God' and that sort of thing. I never asked you to insult the Pope, I merely suggested that strong praise of him while being a 'pro choice, pro gay' person is hugely contradictory. So you praised him some more.
I do not believe that the Pope is obligated to attack minority groups, I do not believe you are obligated to state your love of him. But he does, you do and yet here you are, marveling that someone said something backhanded about Republicans which neither praised nor insulted Bush, simply stated that he at times did his actual job, something current Republicans are not doing at all, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #99)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:12 AM

108. Could be interesting to see you two discuss this

You also seem to hold the opinion that not speaking to our opponents is the only principled way to be. You are right here in terms of your own philosophy. As liberals we should never speak to Dubya or any Pope and make clear our disdain and why we will never work with them in any fashion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #108)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:32 AM

120. You are making all of that up. I have, personally met two Popes and exhanged letters with a third.

 

I call them as I see them. I'd like nothing more in the world than to sit with Francis and hear his attempt to defend his views. Any day of the week. As liberals, we should be talking to and about him with exacting honesty, not with kid gloves and a big gloss over of the facts.
But again, you really have no standing to speak for me nor to characterize me for your own purposes. If you care to cite my positions, do so by quoting me. Do not make up bullshit and ascribe it to me. That's not being honest. That's not discussing. That's just taking a swipe at a passing minority group.

The OP is employing a huge, giant double standard. I do not mean to be calling her out, I like the OP. But the OP does in fact praise the Pope and the OP is in fact strongly pro choice and a good ally to LGBT people. This means the OP does in fact see some reason to praise that Pope, in spite of their areas of disagreement. This means that marveling that Hillary said even Bush was more politically capable than current Republican power holders is a double standard. If one can be strongly pro-choice and yet praise the world's leading anti choice activist, one clearly allows one's elf to praise those with whom one does not agree.
I like one standard for all. If I get to say 'I praise people I also do not agree with' the others do as well. Simple, logical and consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #120)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:49 AM

130. But you're still saying the pope should never be praised

for anything good he does. Like here Dubya did the right thing once, yet he should not be praised for that.

The problem with that standard is that you are focusing on a person's negatives. Practically no one would ever deserve praise, because they are likely to be wrong about at least one thing. People have no encouragement to change then. I don't know who you are that you had the chance to meet two Popes. Did you have the chance to tell them what you really think of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #99)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:33 PM

181. and you are right. although he does say good things they just don't outweigh

 

the homophobia. I was hoping that he's move in a different direction, but he's had ample time to do that and he's just doubled down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:35 PM

157. For crying out loud we all know you would have

something bad to say about Ms Clinton even if she did run for president and win by a 5 million landslide. You always seem to bad mouth her. So we know you do not like her. You do not have to like her but at least you could leave those of us who do like her alone. All she did was tell President-at-the-time that NY needed money. He said yes. Now what is wrong with that? Insulting? That is crap. I don't post much but this time it was necessary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:33 AM

63. Yeah I think some people expect

Hillary and the others to come out and call Bush a war criminal and refuse to ever speak to him again. Would be nice, but not all that likely to happen. Especially right after 911.

Hillary got trashed here for even being in a photo with Kissinger - as if she could be expected to refuse to be anywhere near him because he is so evil. I don't see them refusing to associate or speak with any prominent Republicans like that. In fact if they did things like that, the same people might say how immature it was. The MSM would sure have a field day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:40 PM

183. She praised Kissenger

I can't even tell you how sick that makes me feel. There seems to be a reasonable chance that I will find myself voting for someone who sings praises for that criminal. Talk about depressing... and scary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #183)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:45 PM

192. What did she praise?

Even Nixon did a good thing or two in his life. I mean, you have to really really hate somebody that you are sick at their being praised for anything.

Kissinger is bad, but he's not Hitler, either. ;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #192)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:25 PM

204. Perhaps you need to know more about Kissinger

Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order

In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.

—By David Corn | Fri Sep. 5, 2014 1:44 PM EDT

<snip>
So her tough talk might be charitably evaluated in such a (somewhat) forgiving context. Yet what remains more puzzling and alarming is the big wet kiss she planted (rhetorically) on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger this week, with a fawning review of his latest book, World Order.

Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image. In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker: At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly idealistic":

Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.

Kissinger reminds us that America succeeds by standing up for its values? Did she inhale?

Kissinger, who served as secretary of state for President Richard Nixon and then President Gerald Ford, is a symbol of the worst of US foreign policy. Though he guided the United States through détente with the Soviet Union and initiated the historic opening to China, he engaged in underhanded and covert diplomacy that led to massacres around the globe, as he pursued his version of foreign policy realism. This is no secret.

Chile: Nixon and Kissinger plotted to thwart the democratic election of a socialist president. The eventual outcome: a military coup and a military dictatorship that killed thousands of Chileans.

Argentina: Kissinger gave a "green light" to the military junta's dirty war against political opponents that led to the deaths of an estimated 30,000.

East Timor: Another "green light" from Kissinger, this one for the Indonesian military dictatorship's bloody invasion of East Timor that yielded up to 200,000 deaths.

Cambodia: The secret bombing there during the Nixon phase of the Vietnam War killed between 150,000 and 500,000 civilians.

Bangladesh: Kissinger and Nixon turned a blind eye to—arguably, they tacitly approved—Pakistan's genocidal slaughter of 300,000 Bengalis, most of them Hindus.

And there's more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:10 AM

37. Hillary shoud have kicked W in the balls, because that would get her state more aid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:13 AM

42. what the fuck? So her not praising him in a speech 14 years after the fact

 

is the same thing as "kicking him in the balls" at the time she requested aid (something that by her own recounting had nothing to do with compromise, btw).

Sometimes the lack of the most basic logic, is just embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #42)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:20 AM

47. Most Americans want a government that works towards compromise.

The fact that she attempted to work with Bush on something positive reflects that reality.

Whining about her mentioning it, as if its a terrible sin, is kind of silly.

Embarrassing, you might say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:23 AM

51. lol. nice skirting of the point I made in my post.

 

again, the story in her speech does NOT have anything to do with compromise. And most Americans may broadly want compromise but they may well not like the results of quite a bit of "compromise"- and that's a loaded word because it can mean "give away the store".

And what I'm addressing is not the compromise business. duh. it's the gratuitous praise of a right winger- something she makes a habit of doing.

keep knotting yourself up. it's fun to watch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

56. Which President of the other party should she have mentioned?

Given she was a Senator while BUSH was President, he'd be the only one she'd mention.

As for "knotting up" ... you seem confused.

See, I have a 2016 candidate that I'm quite happy to vote for.

You apparently do "knot".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:56 PM

196. It's always easy to back the favorite of the big money. Back Wall Street over

 

lower classes.

Those that want a change from the status quo that's literally killing Americans have an up-hill battle while some smugly tell us they have a candidate in HRC. Most likely the big money will be able to push HRC into the presidency to your approval, but the Populist Movement will continue anywayz.

H. Clinton is a good friend of George Bush and the Bush Family.

A Clinton vs. Bush race will be win-win for the Oligarchs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM

104. Nobody is going to cooperate with anybody but all candidates need to pay homage to bipartisanship...

Nobody is going to cooperate with anybody but all candidates, on the left and on the right, need to pay homage to bipartisanship for public consumption.


Are there any grown ups on the room?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:38 AM

69. Exactly!



At least then she would have been "fighting" for her principles, that is, never to speak to evil Republican War Criminals! None of us should ever be caught doing that! We should fight them all the time!



Elizabeth Warren would have done just that, simultaneously informing Dubya that the evil corporatist banksters were not going to get away with it next time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:56 AM

90. Exactly.

For some here on DU, nothing, and I mean nothing the president, or any democrat that does not fit their purity test, does will ever be "good"! All I see here on a daily basis from a certain group is bash, bash, bash, never anything positive, just negative, not matter what.

Compromise is a good thing, even though I don't see how this had anything to do with compromise, and as we have seen from the teabagger crowd, when you don't compromise it's bad for everyone. If both parties decided to "NEVER" compromise, and yes I know republicans don't compromise very much, what will be accomplished? Not much, that's for sure. Both sides have to give and take, not just take.

Sometimes I think the far, far right and the far, far left have a lot in common when it comes to the old "my way or the highway" way of thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:02 AM

22. She DID NOT "get" GWB to cooperate



Hillary flatters herself pretending
that she practiced relationship
and consensus-building

Her self-serving remark;
“I did a lot of reaching across the
aisle working with people who had
a lot of political differences with me,”

is laughable in the context of 9/11.

As though she "reached across the aisle"
and built a "concensus" that money was
essential to recover from a terrorist attack!
Because ONLY Hillary could have seen that!



Self-serving politicians deserve to be ridiculed
when they spout such typical campaign dribble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM

24. It's still a poor example to use to attack Hillary Clinton.

Very weak sauce, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM

32. Sorry she can't see her own self-serving interests

She is a lightning rod for controversy.
She never met a scandal she wanted to avoid.

Yet anyone who points out her
shameless self promotion
is the "bad person"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:26 AM

52. Worry less about me "personally" and focus on the topic

You seem very intent on criticizing
DU members and less so about
addressing the criticism of Hillary.

No one seeks your "judgment"
on how strong or weak their
sauce is

You want to talk about your
candidate, fine.

We're not here to talk about
one anothers "sauce"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

57. Oh, dear. You don't like my personal opinion.

I don't have a candidate for the presidency. I will have one after the national convention in 2016. As for my comments on something being a weak argument, I believe I'll make those when I think an argument is weak.

You are not the arbiter of "we're not here." I will continue to post as I choose to post, despite your objections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #57)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:33 AM

62. Do as you choose. Just don't make it personal... TOS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #62)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

102. How did I make anything personal, pray tell?



ETA: I see, now. You're talking about my use of the expression "weak sauce." That refers to the argument that the OP has anything to do with Hillary's candidacy. You must have looked up "weak sauce" in Urban Dictionary, where one person has defined it as an attack on a person. It's used all the time in reference to arguments and policies. That is how I used it. It does not describe a person, but an argument.

Google "that argument is weak sauce" and you'll find many occurrences of it in that usage. In fact, I've never seen it used to describe a person. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source of definitions.

I do not make personal attacks on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:05 AM

27. Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:40 AM

72. Bush was self serving in that too

Normally Republicans don't want to give "handouts" to the unfortunate.

But I agree, in the aftermath of 911, nobody had to compromise a whole lot, especially if the issue had to do with 911 itself.

Let's not forget Dubya was very popular then, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #72)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:24 AM

114. I agree, except the World Trade Center...

does not reflect those
we normally consider "unfortunate".

True, right-wingers loath helping the helpless.
That is a defining difference between us and them.

9/11 made W's presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #114)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:21 PM

150. The WTC also contains many, many people who

are doing jobs like janitorial work, maintenance, and other things. They died, too. The buildings symbolize something, but not necessarily the people in those buildings. Did you forget the people who died? Looks like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #150)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:36 PM

158. It would be pretty unfortunate to be caught in a building ...

It would be pretty unfortunate to be caught in a building that was hit by a jet and fell to the ground...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #158)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

160. I'd think so.

One of my wife's editors was in the building. He got out, but others that worked in that office did not. I think it shows poor taste to minimize the human losses that occurred there. Among the people who died were many who were progressives in life. Simply associating them with the buildings is in poor taste, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #160)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:46 PM

164. Well, yeah, defining folks by their occupations doesn't strike me as particularly nice or liberal...

And even if you aren't a fan of "banksters" and "corporatists" you need to do some sober self reflection if you believe they deserved to be immolated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #164)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:00 PM

171. But, see...they worked in the WTC.

Everyone knows that the only thing that happened in the WTC was bank types stealing money. Everyone in the building is the natural enemy of progressives. That seems to be what that poster is saying. Maybe I misunderstood somehow.

How many people died that day? All the enemies of the 99%, I guess. Feh!

It wearies me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #171)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:03 PM

173. I am out to a movie...I might start a thread asking if it really possible for your occupation ...

I am out to a movie...I might start a thread when I get back asking if it is really possible for your occupation to make you illiberal and isn't it what you do in that occupation that makes you illiberal and not the occupation itself.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #160)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:49 PM

193. Yes, and includes the references to "Wall Street" we often see

as if everyone working on the street is evil and a 1% corporatist or whatever. No janitors there either apparently, or secretaries, or clerks, etc. And as if we would not suffer if "Wall Street" were destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #193)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:36 PM

206. If you get right down to it, most DUers

depend on corporate America for their livelihood or their background. We're an educated group, and most of us are middle class economically. You can see that from the use of language. I don't work directly for any large corporation, but my clients sell their goods, drive their cars and use the technology they sell. I recognize my dependence on our corporate economy on a daily basis.

I'm self employed, and have been for 40 years, but I'm still tied to the economy, just like most of us here are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:48 AM

8. She sounds like she's trying to win an election nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:01 AM

21. If winning an election is about kissing some Bush ass.

That sounds like Bush and the right are firmly in control of Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:53 AM

9. oh come on. She was asking for aid for New York who she represented as a senator. It was no

different than when Chris Christie asked Obama for aid after the floods in New Jersey.

Really grasping at anything to pound the drums to the "hate Hillary crowd"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:12 AM

107. It's not what she did then that's the problem

It's that now, 14 years later, she sees fit to praise this slimy little war criminal, knowing many of the members of her own party despise him and are looking at her for some sign that she actually is on their side.

Criticizing Obama's foreign policy, sucking up to Kissinger, kissing Bush's ass, these are not things that give people a warm and fuzzy feeling about her. She doesn't need to do these sorts of things to get the nomination, in fact she should be doing just the opposite. If she doesn't knock off this kind of crap, she'll have to rely solely on Wall Street $ for support in the general election, because a lot of folks who busted their ass to get Obama elected twice, will sit on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #107)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

165. Does it give a warm and fuzzy to the Independents?

 

We seem to believe we can win with just liberals voting. Sometimes a little (and yes this was little) crumb to Independent voters to get them to vote for the Democratic President is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #165)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:33 PM

191. I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Obama pulled in a sufficient number of "independent" votes to get elected, but Hillary is no Obama, in terms of personal appeal, oratorical skills, or charisma. She's no Bill Clinton either for that matter. What she is is the 21st century version of Richard Nixon, a tremendously polarizing figure who looks guilty even when she has done nothing wrong.

I will say this as well: she might want to toss a little crumb to African American voters or she might find them sitting this one out on the sidelines. The memories of the borderline racist primary campaign she ran in 2008 are still fresh in their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:54 AM

10. The other Clinton's "compromise" got us NAFTA & the repeal of Glass-Steagal & 2008 Great Recession

NO way. Not again!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:00 AM

19. Yup yup. "Reach across the aisle" is code for sell out to Rethugs. Enough is enough...

This will only get people more energized to draft Elizabeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM

23. Didn't Bill Clinton use to say...

when we elected him we got "two for one"?
That he and Hillary were a package deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:42 AM

75. As I think I will have to do a lot

I object to Bill's actions being used against Hillary. She's a different person at a different time. Bill is at most up for FLOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:55 AM

11. The ACA is an example of what can be achieved by compromise.

Yes, Obama could have held out for "single payer or nothing". And you know what we would have ended up with? Nothing. People would still be dying because of being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and hitting lifetime maximums. Is the ACA perfect? Of course not. The left doesn't love it, the right hates it, but it's a damn sight better than what we had before. I want a president who is willing to compromise when necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:05 AM

28. Hillary "compromised" on the Iraq War Resolution

Not all compromises are equal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:50 PM

166. So did Kerry and Biden

 

But up thread some want the Vice President to run. Never a negative from his vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM

31. Or he could have demanded "single payer or nothing".

And compromised with public opption...insted they demanded nothing and he compromised with Romney care.

I want a president that knows how to compromise for us not them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:12 AM

40. The votes were not there for a public option.

The ACA in its current form scraped through by the skin of its teeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:17 AM

45. Um, not the case.

How many republicans voted for the ACA?

The issue as Gruber presented it
is that a Billion dollar industry
wouldn't allow a public option.

And then we were lied into believing
there was not alternative. TINA
A myth that apparently survives today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #45)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

59. 60-39 in the Senate to stop filibuster; Lieberman would not have voted for public option.

After the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats, whose votes would be necessary to break the anticipated Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the Democratic caucus's centrist members until the holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat, representing Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations with Reid in search of a compromise, refused to support a public option, agreeing to vote for the bill only if the provision were not included,[73][91] although it had majority support in Congress. His demand was met.[92] There was debate among the bill's supporters over the importance of the public option,[93] although the vast majority of supporters concluded it was a minor part of the reform overall,[91] and Congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.[92][94]
Senate vote by state.
Democratic yes (58)
Independent yes (2)
Republican no (39)
Republican not voting (1)

With every other Democrat now in favor and every Republican now opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill;[95] they had by this point concluded "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]"[96] because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, she had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership.[97] After a final 13-hour negotiation, Nelson's support for the bill was won with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges", which would require consumers to pay for the procedure out of pocket if the state so decided; and an amendment to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[68][98] The latter half of the compromise was derisively called the "Cornhusker Kickback"[99] and was repealed in the subsequent reconciliation amendment bill.

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[100] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #59)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:36 AM

128. So Joe Liberman held us hostage?

We didn't get a public option because of Joe Liberman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #128)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:50 AM

132. Yep. One of many reasons why the guy is unpopular here, to say the least (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #132)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:55 AM

139. And the Democratic "leadership" was helpless?

Is our "leadership" that feckless?
They let one turncoat torpedo the Public Option?
SRSLY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #139)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:01 PM

143. Each Senator is an individual

representing his/her state. They aren't there to be lined up and controlled. That's the nature of our system. It's a good thing we cannot get what we want, because that means the right wing can't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #128)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:58 PM

170. Ben Nelson too. The Democratic Senators had to give him a bunch of incentives to get his vote.

 

There were a few others. We were very lucky to get what we got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:32 AM

60. Indeed, I prefer the actual legislative history of the ACA's birth and it's success to the dreamed up history of it's failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #60)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:06 PM

199. The Heritage Foundation & Republican Party....

...gave birth to the ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:45 AM

77. Fia enough but I think he stared with public option or nothing

I don't see it as simple haggling where you thing merely starting higher is going to get you closer to a different middle. Single payer had zero chance. Public option had some chance.

And there is a national health plan. Being fought tooth and nail against, as usual for right wingers, but it's there. Public option or nothing obviously would have resulted in nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #77)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:19 AM

110. The right wing fighting against ir is just "don't throw us in the brier patch" psy ops.

They got what they wanted which was private insurance having a mandate to buy...and forcing people to give 30% of it to profit...any details that they don't like can be changed except that one.
But is not a national health plan it is mandatory insurance plan, which when people go to collect it will find out how much they will have to pay.

And I point out that Obama never purposed even a public option much less single payer...so he started with what they wanted and negotiated from there...when simply opening Medicare for all would have solved all the problems we have with insurance.

I don't buy it that this is some great accomplishment...it only served the insurance industry not health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #110)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:23 AM

113. no way the right wing got what they wanted

they want nothing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #113)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:34 AM

122. Well the insurance industry got what they wanted.

And right now they are getting 30% of the take from the 16 million new customers...and I have never heard a right winger complain about them making all that new money...and when the mandate kicks in fully it will be from all of us not on SS.

Our problem is that we don't understand triangulation...but the right does and uses it effectively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #122)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:52 AM

136. It was a tawdry bribe for them to allow Obamacare to be passed.

Horrible, yes, but that's where the old saying about not watching sausages been made or legislation being passed comes from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #122)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:55 AM

138. Totally disagree

They got the new customers they did not want because of pre-existing conditions! It's not just a matter of getting more customers. Insurance companies in a non-controlled capitalist environment want only the healthy ones. The insurance companies fought it, then realized it was inevitable, and so got in to lobby so as to limit their "damage" as much as possible. And likely started investing in other things, realizing they will eventually go down completely for a single payer system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #138)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:00 PM

141. Does not matter how sick the people are they still are allowed to keep 30%.

They just cut benefits or raise premimums...because profits must be paid out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #141)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

153. Yep. It was a simple bribe.

The insurance companies would not allow single payer. So instead, we got sonething that is a rough jury-rigged approximation of single payer in exchange for the insurance companies getting a bribe of a percentage cut of all premiums paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #153)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:28 PM

179. And once they have maxed that out Medicare is next.

The argument will be that we have the ACA now that works just fine, so let them do Medicare too...and they get the cut of those over 65 as well.

Once an industry gets big enough it becomes a beast that constantly grows and must be fed more each time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM

106. The mandate must have been for Democratic legislators

because it didn't help regarding Republican votes though it still baffles me why he used the health insurance industries' arguments especially when he made sense before his about-face though regarding single payer you had Lieberman and Zell Miller threatening to filibuster so I don't hold it against him but the mandate bothers me, not so much ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:26 PM

154. My rates have gone up by over $1000 a year since ACA. And my benefits have decreased. Millions of us

on group plans have taken significant pay cuts to fund ACA. We can't complain about it because if we do we will be fired.

You fucked over the middle class. Gave them ZERO relief. Cut their pay.

BTW - paying for your kids health care until age 26 IS NOT A BENEFIT!!!!!

How about stopping the job loss to India so a kid who spends $75,000 on a college education can get a job and participate in our economy?

He didn't want single payer because he knew he could count on corporations to raise rates on middle class.

PLUS - as part of ACA - corporations can make you submit to "lifestyle" medical tests in order to charge more for people who don't fit in a narrow range of healthy BMI and bloodwork. This information is freely exchanged with "related 3rd parties". So on top of the rate increases we are farmed for data AND get an even bigger rate increase if we refuse to submit to testing.

FUCK THIS SHIT!

Oh and next year rates are going up again.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM

26. W's lack of

…….vigilance about the growing threat, his relegating "hair on fire" Richard Clarke to a back office, his ignoring the Daily Memo that said on 8/6, "Bin Laden determined to strike America" , so he could get back to his golf game, helped blow up NY. No wonder he was willing to give 20B to the city, just so long as he got his Iraq War out of the thing.

She curdles my blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:07 AM

30. Barf n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM

33. Read the rest of the article.

“The people who claim proudly never to compromise should not be in the Congress of the United States, because I don’t think I or anybody have all the answers. I think we can actually learn things from each other I think we have to start listening,” she said.


Sounds like she's taking a shot at the GOP congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:09 AM

35. How many anti-Hillary OPs does it take to generate an acceptably liberal ...

... alternative candidate?

What's the current estimate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:14 AM

43. so we shouldn't criticize your beloved hillary because it's not

 

"productive", in YOUR eyes.

good luck with that. have fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #43)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:17 AM

46. Did I say you should stop your crusade ... oops ... I mean criticism?

You should feel free to be as critical as you want ... that seems to be your default setting. Might as well run with it.

And hey, after a few hundred anti-Hillary OPs, maybe that new uber-liberal candidate will emerge from the keyboard dust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:20 AM

48. What is the DNC doing about grooming candidates?

Wasserman-Schultz is not doing
a damn thing to bring up the
next front of Democratic leaders.

Yet it's us, the voters, that should
take responsibility for the DNC's failure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:27 AM

54. Why are you waiting for a group you hate to create this acceptably liberal candidate?

You aren't a fan of the DNC, correct?

There is a segment of the left who has been whining about Obama for 6+ years.

They spent the 2 years before the 2012 elections calling for a primary of Obama. He won anyway.

So they're now going to spend 4 years (we're 2+ into the 4) complaining about Hillary.

The time to start building this acceptably liberal candidate was about 4 years ago. And the disgruntled folks who dislike Obama, and now Hillary, have been spending it complaining about the present, and not focusing on the future.

Complaining about Hillary is not going to create this acceptably liberal candidate you claim you want. Didn't keep Obama from getting reelected, and it most likely won't prevent Hillary from winning the nomination should she seek it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:32 AM

61. Hate? I hate the DNC? really?

MAybe it's the incompetent,
or worse, obstructionist,
people running the DNC
that deserve blame?

Howard Dean was doing GREAT at the DNC
and then they gave the job to a 3rd-Way retread.

The 3rd-Way has lost us seats and offices
every year since Wasserman-Schultz took over.

But it's the voters fault for not voting
hard enough for DINOs and assorted
3rd-Way losers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:36 AM

67. Yet no answer to my actual question ...

Why are you waiting for the DNC to create this candidate?

btw ... the DNC won the Presidential election twice with Obama.

And which election is this thread about?

The 2016 Presidential election.

If you want to beat Hillary, you're going to need a candidate.

Smiley faces won't cut it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #67)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:31 AM

119. Why am I waiting?

Is that what you think is going on?

Either you are being obtuse,
or don't understand the
political machinery?

I think the former applies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:39 AM

70. DLC has taken over the DNC.

Party unity is a curious concept for the self-identified “New Dems” to appeal to considering that during their rise to power New Dems labeled minorities, women, the LGBT community, working people in unions, seniors, environmentalists and others “special interests” to be grouped in with “cause-orientated” Democrats and pushed aside.

This was done while elevating the financial sector to the hallowed place within the party establishment from which it now delivers edicts for everyone else to be super nice to them.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/21/the_lefts_real_choice_in_2016_why_it_doesnt_need_elizabeth_warren_to_run/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #70)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:34 AM

124. The should call it the "hollowed" place, not hallowed

The DNC, DLC, 3rd-Way has gutted the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:49 AM

81. Did Howard Dean generate Obama out of the dust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:48 AM

79. We are ultimately responsible for who we pick!

Candidates are not limited to being "groomed by the DNC." In fact, wouldn't that be awfully controlling and corporatist of them? Why should we settle for whoever they decide on? We can bring up others! We need someone better than Hillary and we're going to wait for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to find someone for us? That's sounds pretty passive to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:28 AM

115. Are you patronizing me?

Who is this "we" you speak of?
Are you new here?
Don't you know how this works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #115)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:30 AM

117. Don't understand your response

But I'm not going to sit back and let the DNC decide. Not as not my representatives in some way. I don't see myself as outside of the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #117)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:33 AM

121. So, who are "we" supporting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #121)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:51 AM

133. We can support anyone right now

I would say all the way up to the actual nomination of a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #133)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:53 AM

137. OK, are you pro-Hillary?

Or a hold your nose and vote democrat?
Honest question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:57 AM

140. I never held my nose to vote for any Democrat.

I'm pretty neutral at this point, but not against any potential Democratic candidate. That's all we have now, are potentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:46 AM

78. It must be much more than have been posted on DU so far!!!

Elizabeth Warren will not even consider running until she has seen 34.54 anti-Hillary OPs per minute on DU! She's watching!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 02:30 PM

186. I wish I knew. I'd stay up all night to do it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:09 AM

36. Praising Dubya - Expect More Of This Third Way Claptrap Should HRC Become President

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:11 AM

38. She's praising GWB because he didn't make her fight, lol.

 

Why fight, if compromising your constituency is easier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:21 AM

49. Ceremonial niceties

It's why John McCain refers to Dick Durbin as his distinguished colleague when he really wants to put a fork in his eye.


That being said,neither side is going to work on something that the other side deems important and is popular because the other side will get the credit for it and that will help them in the next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:27 AM

53. Well, she sure was bi-partisan in supporting and voting for Bush's wars.

 

At the cost of 100,000 - 500,000 civilian lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #53)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:34 AM

123. +1

Nothing else needs to be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:29 AM

55. The enemies are the Christofascists, not the Clintons......FOCUS, or be divided and conquered.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/20/1372134/-Paul-Krugman-is-a-Must-Read-Today-Again

A reminder why that is true.

From Daily Kos blog:

"Thank you Dr. Krugman for putting in plain language what so much of the press closes their eyes to. The Republican Party is trying to run America the way a Slumlord runs an apartment building - but it goes even farther than that.

It's not just that the Republicans are busy transferring wealth upwards (so much for 'trickle-down fantasies) - it's that they're busy turning us against each other too. Blatant appeals to racism, sexism on steroids, xenophobia, endless fear and war-mongering, religious fanaticism; all of this intended to distract us from what they're doing to the country, and to keep us from uniting against them.

It's no coincidence that three of the GOP Presidential contenders - Walker, Christie, Perry - are the subject of criminal investigations. Mike Huckabee is peddling bogus medical cures to the gullible. Rick Scott is applying Putin-style censorship to Florida state employees who dare mention Climate Change in public.

The modern Republican Party has combined the worst aspects of a cult with those of organized crime. Dealing with them may prove a greater challenge than the Civil War or World War II. Between their economic chicanery, their divisiveness, and their refusal to face up to real threats to the world, their deliberate malice towards all and charity towards none may ultimately be the end of us all."

...................

Focus.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:51 AM

84. Third Way "New Democrats" divided us, and it all began with The Clintons

The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton.[39] With respect to U.S. presidents, the term "Third Way" was introduced by political scientist Stephen Skowronek.[40][41][42] "Third Way" presidents 'undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Think of Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson's "Great Society"; Clinton’s welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama’s pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform.'[43] wiki



Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul

Third Way, backed by Wall Street titans, corporate money, and congressional allies, is publicly warning against divisive “soak-the-rich” politics voiced by populist Democrats. Its target: Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator whose rise to power two years ago helped galvanize Democratic grass roots against Wall Street and pushed the issue of income inequality to the forefront.

This is more than a grudge match. At stake for the Democratic Party is the support of middle-class, swing voters who decide elections.

Third Way ignited a clash in December when its leaders essentially declared war on Warren in a guest column in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, warning Democrats not to follow Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio “over the populist cliff.”

Many on the left were shocked, and angered. Warren’s allies saw Third Way as a proxy — being used by her enemies on Wall Street to scare off the rest of the party.

“Wall Street is extremely good at pushing anybody that is critical of them as being populist, or know-nothings,” said Ted Kaufman, who temporarily served as an appointed US senator to replace Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., then succeeded Warren in leading a special congressional panel that oversaw the bank bailout.

For their part, Third Way representatives bristle at the idea they are doing the bidding of Wall Street power brokers....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html#


And conservaDems are surprised traditional, liberal Dems aren't happy with her return as a candidate?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

152. Sorry, in some ways the Clintons have been the enemy. NAFTA

 

for example. Hillary's vote and YEARS long support of the obscene Iraq war. Her support for the attack on Libya which has predictably been a disaster. Her support for attacking Syria. To put it mildly, her judgment on foreign policy is suspect. Ironic, considering her last job. And there's so much more: Her instrumental role in the TPP, for instance.

On social issues, I'm OK with Hill. But I see major policy as a "three legged stool"- and Hill only has one leg on her stool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

58. Are we supposed to just grin and take one for the blue team again?

Or does Hilary agree with Rahm that there is no base? Or that the base is as looney as the teapublicans?

She and her advisors are either utterly tone deaf or they actually believe their own bullshit. Or they really don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:39 AM

71. Extremists don't compromise.

That Hilary implies that Obama coulda/shoulda compromised with the wing nuts shows that she is entirely clueless about the situation. The RWNJ's said that they would not pass any Obama legislation from day 1. Does she think that the extremists will roll over for her? This is such a fantasy that I can only believe that:

a. she has to believe that things will be different for her, though the extremists hate her guts.

b. she knows that this is a totally false scenario, and is willing to pretend it's true.

The reality is that whatever Democrat runs and wins the presidency will face the same obstructionism that Obama has faced. The only way that will change is if the Republicans finally cut loose from the extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:41 AM

73. And when Bush said give me the AUMF to destroy Iraq that had no WMDs

 

and had nothing to do with Iraq, Hillary said you got it, my Lord. I won't even read the NIE on Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:42 AM

74. And YET…. Mrs. Clinton wasn't under a rock when at the State Dept...

… She's never lived under a rock. She's lived in the primary roles of reaching across the aisle since 1992.

Does the art of compromise include understanding what would happen with then President Clinton's unwillingness to compromise with the Financial Services Modernization Act, or Commodity Futures Modernization Act? This is the essential legislation which reversed Glass Steagall, enabled the great recession, and allowed unfettered control of data that was NEVER meant to be shared about every American.

These people are privileged in formal education and positions in the most powerful national positions. By turning a deaf ear and blind eye to changes in regulating business and allowing the merge of Insurance (commercial, business) with banking contingent on the ability to merge ALL THE DATA to 3rd parties in a bi-partician fashion, we have lost our ability to be trusted, and not have everything we do watched.

The "two for one" Clinton era has already ushered in the essential role of relationship building, Hillary.

Fool me one….. heh…. don't get fooled again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:43 AM

76. As if

 

What a pathetic example. As if George W. Lackland would have said no to that request, even if Bernie Sanders was asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:49 AM

80. The art of compromise, indeed - Hill praises the man whose criminal negligence led to 9/11.

Her moral compromise isn't compromised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:51 AM

83. Nominating her will be the suicide of the Democratic Party. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:57 AM

91. Yep. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:36 AM

127. ^^^^^^^^^ ~ THIS ~ ^^^^^^^^^

 

The leadership must be just as out of touch with the needs of the people as she is.

Damn, if it goes her way we lose even more senate seats and the next election will be between the Republicans and the Tea Party, with Dems as a distant third party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #127)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:51 AM

134. So a "third party" is an option?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #134)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:00 PM

142. I would love to see Hillary Clinton run on a third party ticket....

 

Somewhere in Eastern Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #142)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:58 PM

169. +1 lol, excellent idea, besides that's probably where her email is being hosted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:43 PM

184. The multimillionaires who run the party win either way -

 

if the Democratic candidate loses to the Republican, their stock portfolios do fabulously under an administration which pushes pro-1% policies; if the candidate wins, they get inside information on which to make sure, in a roundabout barely-legal way, that their stock portfolios do fabulously. Win-win for the super-rich $$$ Third Way sellouts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:52 AM

85. I'm Shocked!

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:55 AM

88. By this definition Obama praised Ronald Reagan when he ran for President n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #88)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:20 AM

111. Here is Obama in Time Magazine, praising Tom Coburn voluntarily...

 

"The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve.

After I took office, Tom received dozens of letters from Oklahomans complaining that we looked too close on TV. Tom’s response was “How better to influence somebody than to love them?” Each of us still hopes the other will see the light. But in the meantime, we’ll settle for being friends."
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:01 AM

93. Ever notice that they do not have trouble with bi-partisanship when it is a bill to free up

Wall Street? They don't brag about finally being able to work together to get something done. They announce it, if at all, on Friday evening. Agriculture subsidies, sure, how about military contracts? No problem! As long as it involves mutual Donors they are all for it! Spying on us? Bi-partisian Baby!
The REAL ROOT PROBLEM is that the wealthy buy these sell outs of the people and we allow it! All of the groups fighting for or against issues like legalizing pot, gun control, environment/climate change, immigration, education, LGBTV issues, women's issues, trade agreements... need to join together and focus on this one, narrow, thing if they want positive action to have the will of the people decide what should happen instead of Lobbyists and their benefactors. We will never get the change this country needs to excel or even survive if we don't stop the legal bribery of our former Representatives!
This is the challenge of our times. If you want to keep supporting the billionaires and corporations, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. Keep voting against your interests. Hillary is certainly better than any from the clown car, but why should we let her run unopposed in the Primary just because she stands a better chance 1 1/2 years out from the election? We can signal our desire/need for a populist candidate to demonstrate what the real issues are and how we can solve them. We can control the narrative if we demand an end to campaign contributions en mass! We have to stop the buying of our elections as they are a complete joke at this point.
Who has the best chance to win? Why let's see who raised/took in the most money in campaign contributions/bribes! That is how we judge our candidates viability, which one can convince the most Plutocrat's and corporations to donate money to them! What would Hillary have to do for all of that Wall Street money? Why the same thing that the Republican candidate will have to do for his/her Wall Street money! Regulate Wall Street to prevent another financial collapse, shit that was like 7 years ago, there is no need!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #93)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:16 AM

109. Food stamps had popular support...George MCGovern and Bob Dole were its biggest proponents

Because poor folks got food and and agricultural states by extension had more clients...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM

94. That was a reasonable statement.

 

In that one instance, we had very brief bipartisanship. What she said was fine, Hillsry-haters just need to vent their daily dose of spite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM

95. How about even ONE example of a Republican saying similar things about Bill Clinton or

--LBJ. This shit only goes one way, and it needs to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM

96. How difficult could it have been for George W. Bush?

Especially when Hillary Clinton was spouting Pentagon propaganda in favor of one of his most controversial actions (IWR)

I can't remember who but there was actually a Republican who at one point basically said this is ridiculous pointing out there were more circuit court or one of the lower court judge appointments blocked in one year than Bush's entire first term. These Republicans will oppose anything, mandates then sue Obama for delaying enforcement of the mandate because they're suing "ObamaCare" which was the Republican idea on health care reform since Nixon if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure he used it in contrast to Hupert Humphrey's health care policy. I heard people mention it was the Viagara dude (why can't I remember his name right now?) policy. "RomneyCare" & Heritage foundation are others.

Everyone asks for 'pork' or money for the state, even those who oppose pork barrel spending but they justify it by saying since there is so much of it they might as well as ask for something for their home states. She was basically asking for something all politicians ask for this isn't very convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:04 AM

98. If Hillary was reaching across the aisle, she very well may have been reaching to Democrats.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

101. Let's not forget she voted for Bush's War in Iraqi

She has been in a bubble way too long she needs to get out and meet and listen to people not just the "Yes women" (and men) that she has around her right now. She can become a great candidate for our party but the way she has been handling the questions about her lately make one wounded if she is ready for prime time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #103)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:40 AM

129. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #129)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:17 PM

148. Since I can't respond to your pal who got a hide what is a "premature organism"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:29 AM

116. Hillary Warhawk Clinton is running as the Anti-Obama: "Republicans? She'll Work With 'Em!"

 

Here are her two main thrusts, as I see them.

1: Pander to woman. She's a woman, she can be the first woman president, woo hoo. Hell, that's half the voters right there.

2: Run against Obama, get on that Obama hating side of Republicans and Independents and show how to be bipartisan.

What this boils down to is that it's going to suck to be a working class slob in a world where Hillary is the POTUS.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #116)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

126. Barack Obama on Tom Coburn, in Time Magazine, 2013.....

 

"But after we entered the Senate at the same time, our wives, Michelle and Carolyn, hit it off at an orientation dinner. Pretty soon, we did too. Since then, we’ve bonded over family and faith. And we’ve harnessed our friendship and mutual respect to find places where we can agree and work together to move this country forward.

We co-sponsored the “Google for Government” act, which made government more transparent and more accountable to the American people. We worked together to cut down on earmarks. And we continue to agree on the need to reduce wasteful spending and close tax loopholes that benefit only the well-off and well connected.

The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve."
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:30 AM

118. she praises bush, obama acts like bush. where the outrage over that lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #118)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:09 PM

188. I'm getting a kick out of your pro-Clinton posts. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

125. W's idea of a compromise is anthrax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:50 AM

131. trying to get RW votes?

 

well she already has the right of center 'progressives and liberals', she might as well cement her relationship with that other RW group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:52 AM

135. As well she should!

Here is George W Bush compromising his role as Commander in Chief on 9/11--



If anyone knows compromise, it's George!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:09 PM

144. Ahahahahah and holy shit, she's recycling the "reach across the aisle" bullshit, or as centrists say

she's keeping her powder dry.

See Ferguson? That's a product of bi-partisanship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #144)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:30 PM

155. ...

"I will call for a standing, bipartisan consultative group of congressional leaders on national security. I will meet with this consultative group every month and consult with them before taking major military action.

-Barack Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:11 PM

145. Hillary is a Republcan-lite woman. Can't trust her anymore.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:16 PM

146. That’s it? That’s the “praise” claimed in the headline?

Hillary neither “praised” Bush nor did she say anything about the “art of compromise."

Misleading bullshit from Time. They’ve really gone down the drain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #146)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:36 PM

159. Of all the leaders worthy of emulation? She chose GW Bush. That is the fact you are denying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #159)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:44 PM

162. There was no “emulating” anyone. She was discussing her own ability to reach across the aisle.

Now show me the quote in which she “praises” Bush. If simply stating the fact that he agreed to $20 billion in relief funding for New York after 9/11 is “praise”, that is a incredibly low bar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #159)


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:17 PM

147. Just like Bush compromised the truth about Iraq resulting in slaughter of 100,000 people

and trillions of dollars. The end result was ISIS.

Hillary seems determined to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:42 PM

161. For a few short days in the aftermath of 9-11...

For a few short days in the aftermath of 9-11 almost everybody liked one another ...I'm not going to read much more into her comments than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #167)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:06 PM

174. Do you have a link to the speech where he allegedly praised Wallace?

I couldn't find one, and I would like to read his exact words in the speech rather than a reporters interpretation of what he said, in some passing comment in a magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #174)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:50 PM

195. That's all that exists on the internet...

That's all that exists in the internet... The fact he made a pilgrimage to Birmingham to visit George Wallace should be enough... I can remember reading about it contemporaneously. I'm not shocked... It's part of being a politician. I see the world through the lens of an adult and not those of a child. History is replete with folks in power saying nice things about other folks in power, even those they find diametrically opposed to themselves.


Here's a photo of Ted Kennedy giving The Profile In Courage award to Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon:




Background
President Gerald Ford was honored for his courage in making a controversial decision of conscience to pardon former President Richard M. Nixon. On September 8, 1974, President Ford granted a “full, free and absolute pardon” to former President Nixon “for all offenses against the United States which he...has committed or may have committed or taken part in” while he was president. Nixon accepted the pardon. The response from the press, Congress and the general public was overwhelmingly negative. Appearing before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, President Ford explained under oath, in the first sworn congressional testimony ever given by a sitting president, that there were no deals connected with the pardon. Ford wrote in his autobiography that Nixon's pardon “wasn't motivated primarily by sympathy for his plight or by concern over the state of his health. It was the state of the country’s health at home and around the world that worried me.” In 1976, President Ford lost the White House to Jimmy Carter in one of the closest elections in American history. Many historians believe Ford’s pardon of Nixon contributed to his defeat.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/Profile-in-Courage-Award/Award-Recipients/Gerald-Ford-2001.aspx


I can do that with a myriad of politicians...Awarding and praising opponents is a time honored tradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:57 PM

168. I live in NYC and said nice things about Bush after 9/11. Nearly choked on it but I did.

 

Of course it didn't take long for me to remember why I hate him.

She was just trying to say something nice. I think we should not read anything into it.


Ted Kennedy said nice things about Bush as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #168)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:02 PM

172. Of all the people in the world to emulate, is GW Bush her first choice? Is she running as Repub?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #172)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:09 PM

176. Oh she said something off thr top of her head.

 

I said something nice about the sob once or twice but that doesn't make me a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #172)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:50 PM

194. I don't see anything about emulation of Dubya

That's almost impossible as you'd have to be dumber than Dubya to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:11 PM

177. Sounds like Obama's praise of Bush* and bipartisanship eom

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:32 PM

180. also from the Time article

Clinton’s remarks were not only a critique of the prevailing deadlock in Washington but also a dig at hardline Republicans and President Obama, who many critics have argued has been largely unable to rein in divides in the Capitol.
including this HRC quote:
“The people who claim proudly never to compromise should not be in the Congress of the United States, because I don’t think I or anybody have all the answers. I think we can actually learn things from each other I think we have to start listening,” she said.

True as far as it goes, but defining compromise is the tricky bit here. Compromise can be defined as:

1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"

•a middle state between conflicting opinions or actions reached by mutual concession or modification.
"a compromise between commercial appeal and historical interest"
•the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
"sexism should be tackled without compromise'
2.
accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

What many corporate Democrats are doing is continuing to move toward the right and painting that move as compromise. As the GOP becomes more extreme the "compromise position" becomes more right wing. All I see from many corporate Democrats is an acceptance of definition #2.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:08 PM

187. More compromise means another step backwards. Way to go Hill!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:11 PM

189. Thirdwayer's idea of a compromise:

Republican: We need a private meeting so we can speak with candor.

Democratic Thirdwayer: It is in the best interest of the public that you speak with candor, so we'll speak privately.

Republican (in private): If you want to run an interstate through the city limits you'll have to make some inducement for the business owners that will be impacted by the construction.

Democratic Thirdwayer: We can work on that. But I also have a huge campaign donor who has a problem wetland area to develop within the city limits, however the major infra-structure is owned by the existing homeowners.

Republican: No problem, we'll just bring in the leaders in the community and give them an active role to play in the construction of the road and the private development.

Democratic Thirdwayer: We should have enough government project money for some of the homeowners, but not enough to induce them all.

Republican: We only need to induce a few of them. This is, afterall, how small government works. Whatever they do to their own people is a private matter.

Democratic Thirdwayer: Isn't it great how we can come to a compromise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:01 PM

197. lol - Conservative Democrats are now lining up to praise GW Bush. Hillary's lurch to the

right has obviously inspired their true nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:03 PM

198. She said when she started her non-campaign that she'll be more appeasing than Obama

 

so this is not really news, though it is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:33 PM

205. She also loves Kissinger. She cam kiss R butt all she wants, they still won't like her

Neither do I. We can do better.
We have to do better, or we will lose in the general.

R's will vote against her. So will a lot of progressives & independents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:10 AM

207. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:21 AM

208. W. and Kissinger are war criminals in my book

 

and I will base any and all votes on that presumption. There are other issues of importance to me as well. Rampant Corporatism. Environmental protections. Wealth disparity. Worker rights. Hillary is not ideal for me on any of these issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread