General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary 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.
Weve 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 someones 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".
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
pscot
(21,025 posts)Autumn
(45,541 posts)we all become republicans that way we can water their platform and values down.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like Speaker Sam used to say: "To get along, you got to go along."
http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)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.
eggplant
(3,944 posts)hedda_foil
(16,430 posts)Okay, I know there's no more official DIzzy but if there were...
LiberalArkie
(15,906 posts)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.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)is to keeping moving both political parties to the right.
Broward
(1,976 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)would not be hard to get out of Dubya. What's the great across the aisle accomplishment there?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)![](/emoticons/sarcasm.gif)
Plus working "across the aisle" is what most people want... not DUers but the voting public likes those words.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)with compromise. this is reaching out to the right.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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.
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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'.
Badass Liberal
(57 posts)That seething Hillary-hate might affect your health.
NYC Liberal
(20,230 posts)Jon82
(92 posts)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.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I, too, am failing to see the problem here.
namastea42
(96 posts)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.
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.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,389 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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.
awake
(3,226 posts)Or does it need to be a woman?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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.
awake
(3,226 posts)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
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)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.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)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?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)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?
awake
(3,226 posts)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
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
awake
(3,226 posts)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.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)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.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
still_one
(93,985 posts)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
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's much like her praise of Kissinger. It's like she's so sure of the nomination, she's already running a general
still_one
(93,985 posts)access to it. Makes perfect sense
cali
(114,904 posts)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.
still_one
(93,985 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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?
cali
(114,904 posts)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.
asjr
(10,479 posts)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!
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
G_j
(40,402 posts)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!
treestar
(82,383 posts)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. ;
G_j
(40,402 posts)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 privilegean 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 toarguably, they tacitly approvedPakistan's genocidal slaughter of 300,000 Bengalis, most of them Hindus.
And there's more...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)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.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)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!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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?
treestar
(82,383 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
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!
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
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!
Andy823
(11,506 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
Hillary flatters herself pretending
that she practiced relationship
and consensus-building
![](/emoticons/laughing.gif)
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!
![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
Self-serving politicians deserve to be ridiculed
when they spout such typical campaign dribble.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)Very weak sauce, indeed.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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"?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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"...
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)MineralMan
(146,640 posts)![](/emoticons/shrug.gif)
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.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)It would be pretty unfortunate to be caught in a building that was hit by a jet and fell to the ground...
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
MineralMan
(146,640 posts)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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)That sounds like Bush and the right are firmly in control of Democrats.
still_one
(93,985 posts)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"
tularetom
(23,664 posts)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.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)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.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)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.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)NO way. Not again!!!!!!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,389 posts)This will only get people more energized to draft Elizabeth.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)when we elected him we got "two for one"?
That he and Hillary were a package deal?
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Not all compromises are equal
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But up thread some want the Vice President to run. Never a negative from his vote.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The ACA in its current form scraped through by the skin of its teeth.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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 6039 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 6039, 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
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)We didn't get a public option because of Joe Liberman?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Is our "leadership" that feckless?
They let one turncoat torpedo the Public Option?
SRSLY?
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)There were a few others. We were very lucky to get what we got.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)...gave birth to the ACA.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they want nothing!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Horrible, yes, but that's where the old saying about not watching sausages been made or legislation being passed comes from.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They just cut benefits or raise premimums...because profits must be paid out.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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.
JonLP24
(29,332 posts)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.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)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.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)
.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.
hibbing
(10,194 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Sounds like she's taking a shot at the GOP congress.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... alternative candidate?
What's the current estimate?
cali
(114,904 posts)"productive", in YOUR eyes.
good luck with that. have fun.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)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?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)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/
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The DNC, DLC, 3rd-Way has gutted the party.
treestar
(82,383 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Who is this "we" you speak of?
Are you new here?
Don't you know how this works?
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I would say all the way up to the actual nomination of a candidate.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Or a hold your nose and vote democrat?
Honest question.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm pretty neutral at this point, but not against any potential Democratic candidate. That's all we have now, are potentials.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Elizabeth Warren will not even consider running until she has seen 34.54 anti-Hillary OPs per minute on DU! She's watching!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Why fight, if compromising your constituency is easier?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)At the cost of 100,000 - 500,000 civilian lives.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Nothing else needs to be said.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)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.....
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)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. Warrens 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?
cali
(114,904 posts)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.
hedda_foil
(16,430 posts)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.
cheyanne
(733 posts)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.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)and had nothing to do with Iraq, Hillary said you got it, my Lord. I won't even read the NIE on Iraq.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
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.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)What a pathetic example. As if George W. Lackland would have said no to that request, even if Bernie Sanders was asking.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Her moral compromise isn't compromised.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)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.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)![](/emoticons/sarcasm.gif)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Somewhere in Eastern Europe.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)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.
2banon
(7,321 posts)![](/emoticons/sarcasm.gif)
Tom Rinaldo
(22,975 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"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. Toms 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, well settle for being friends."
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/
Dustlawyer
(10,506 posts)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!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)Because poor folks got food and and agricultural states by extension had more clients...
Badass Liberal
(57 posts)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.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--LBJ. This shit only goes one way, and it needs to stop.
JonLP24
(29,332 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)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.
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)![](/emoticons/hattip.gif)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"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, weve bonded over family and faith. And weve 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/
msongs
(68,470 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)well she already has the right of center 'progressives and liberals', she might as well cement her relationship with that other RW group.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Here is George W Bush compromising his role as Commander in Chief on 9/11--
If anyone knows compromise, it's George!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)she's keeping her powder dry.
See Ferguson? That's a product of bi-partisanship.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)-Barack Obama
TRoN33
(769 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,230 posts)Hillary neither praised Bush nor did she say anything about the art of compromise."
Misleading bullshit from Time. Theyve really gone down the drain.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,230 posts)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.
Response to whereisjustice (Reply #159)
NYC Liberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)and trillions of dollars. The end result was ISIS.
Hillary seems determined to do the same.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)Folks say/do a lot of things on their path to the White House.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,880 posts)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 countrys 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 Fords 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.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)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.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I said something nice about the sob once or twice but that doesn't make me a Republican.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's almost impossible as you'd have to be dumber than Dubya to do that.
TransitJohn
(6,933 posts)n/t
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Clintons 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 dont 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.
glinda
(14,807 posts)![](/emoticons/banghead.gif)
![](/emoticons/grr.gif)
![](/emoticons/nuke.gif)
![](/emoticons/hide.gif)
![](/emoticons/thumbsdown.gif)
![](/emoticons/thumbsdown.gif)
![](/emoticons/thumbsdown.gif)
Baitball Blogger
(47,285 posts)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?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)right has obviously inspired their true nature.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)so this is not really news, though it is disgusting.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)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
WillyT
(72,631 posts)![](/emoticons/donkey.gif)
JEB
(4,748 posts)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.