Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:29 AM Mar 2015

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise (Original Post) cali Mar 2015 OP
Woot! Bipartisanship! pscot Mar 2015 #1
Yay! More reaching across the aisle! Here's an idea, Autumn Mar 2015 #2
It'd be great for our political careers. Octafish Mar 2015 #13
oh god. can she be more tone deaf to what she is supposed to be? But then, her hubby is roguevalley Mar 2015 #14
I think it is called "reaching around the aisle." n/t eggplant Mar 2015 #25
DUzy!! hedda_foil Mar 2015 #50
I have thought of that. That is what the tea party did, and the religious folk did. LiberalArkie Mar 2015 #112
Centrists should go back to the Republican Party. Their only purpose as Democrats whereisjustice Mar 2015 #175
This is exactly right. They're complicit. Broward Mar 2015 #190
Right after 911 aid for New York treestar Mar 2015 #3
Heaven forbid a Senator from NY cajole a Republican for some much needed money OKNancy Mar 2015 #5
Like Chris Christie and Obama after Hurricane Sandy treestar Mar 2015 #6
what is the point of praising W.? and for what? this has nothing to do cali Mar 2015 #16
So, you don't think there was a need for federal funding after 9/11? MineralMan Mar 2015 #20
one more time: we're talking about a speech she gave the other day cali Mar 2015 #34
That's why she appears self-serving! Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #41
So you don't think Bush would have given federal aid to New York City if Hillary A Simple Game Mar 2015 #89
Gosh, I think pointing out that W would do that which current Republicans refuse to do paints Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #86
She didn't praise him. Badass Liberal Mar 2015 #100
Where is the “praise”? I see none. NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #149
Part of the problem is lack of compromise Jon82 Mar 2015 #44
Hillary won't be my first choice... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #200
Hillary, striving for that Warm, Purple Place namastea42 Mar 2015 #4
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? InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #15
Yes we can! We can do better it is 2015 not the 90s awake Mar 2015 #68
Do you think Warren is ready to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Yes we can do better, Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #82
What about Joe Biden awake Mar 2015 #87
Did I say it needs to be a woman? I look for qualifications, and yes Joe Biden is qualified. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #97
Our party can only do better in 2016 with Joe in the race with Hillary awake Mar 2015 #105
I do not have a problem with Joe Biden or others getting into the primaries, I don't Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #203
I like Joe Biden. cheapdate Mar 2015 #151
I know that Clinton isn't who we need in 2016 Scootaloo Mar 2015 #201
Well who can win in the General? yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #156
Joe Biden awake Mar 2015 #178
Joe Biden will be called a centrist or corporatist, just as Obama is. MineralMan Mar 2015 #182
I was responding to the question "Well who can win in the General?" awake Mar 2015 #185
Anyone who runs. Scootaloo Mar 2015 #202
Well, the example she gave was of getting GWB to cooperate. MineralMan Mar 2015 #7
amazing isn't it. Her job was to help the state she was representing, and she is being criticized still_one Mar 2015 #12
It seems to me like some people are looking for anything they MineralMan Mar 2015 #17
Well she actually spoke to that Evil George Dubya Bush! treestar Mar 2015 #65
It's pretty amazing, I think. MineralMan Mar 2015 #92
bzzzt no. I am criticizing her for the gratuitous praise of W. cali Mar 2015 #18
right. you want money for your state so she should have insulted the President who could facilitate still_one Mar 2015 #29
that's ridiculous. You don't seem to grasp that the absense of praise is not cali Mar 2015 #39
this is a real big issue for you, is laughable still_one Mar 2015 #64
Can't we praise him when he did right? treestar Mar 2015 #66
And yet when I question your praise of the Pope, a bigoted anti choice activist, you say 'So sue me' Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #99
Could be interesting to see you two discuss this treestar Mar 2015 #108
You are making all of that up. I have, personally met two Popes and exhanged letters with a third. Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #120
But you're still saying the pope should never be praised treestar Mar 2015 #130
and you are right. although he does say good things they just don't outweigh cali Mar 2015 #181
For crying out loud we all know you would have asjr Mar 2015 #157
Yeah I think some people expect treestar Mar 2015 #63
She praised Kissenger G_j Mar 2015 #183
What did she praise? treestar Mar 2015 #192
Perhaps you need to know more about Kissinger G_j Mar 2015 #204
Hillary shoud have kicked W in the balls, because that would get her state more aid. JoePhilly Mar 2015 #37
what the fuck? So her not praising him in a speech 14 years after the fact cali Mar 2015 #42
Most Americans want a government that works towards compromise. JoePhilly Mar 2015 #47
lol. nice skirting of the point I made in my post. cali Mar 2015 #51
Which President of the other party should she have mentioned? JoePhilly Mar 2015 #56
It's always easy to back the favorite of the big money. Back Wall Street over rhett o rick Mar 2015 #196
Nobody is going to cooperate with anybody but all candidates need to pay homage to bipartisanship... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #104
Exactly! treestar Mar 2015 #69
Exactly. Andy823 Mar 2015 #90
She DID NOT "get" GWB to cooperate Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #22
It's still a poor example to use to attack Hillary Clinton. MineralMan Mar 2015 #24
Sorry she can't see her own self-serving interests Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #32
Worry less about me "personally" and focus on the topic Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #52
Oh, dear. You don't like my personal opinion. MineralMan Mar 2015 #57
Do as you choose. Just don't make it personal... TOS Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #62
How did I make anything personal, pray tell? MineralMan Mar 2015 #102
Well said. n/t zentrum Mar 2015 #27
Bush was self serving in that too treestar Mar 2015 #72
I agree, except the World Trade Center... Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #114
The WTC also contains many, many people who MineralMan Mar 2015 #150
It would be pretty unfortunate to be caught in a building ... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #158
I'd think so. MineralMan Mar 2015 #160
Well, yeah, defining folks by their occupations doesn't strike me as particularly nice or liberal... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #164
But, see...they worked in the WTC. MineralMan Mar 2015 #171
I am out to a movie...I might start a thread asking if it really possible for your occupation ... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #173
Yes, and includes the references to "Wall Street" we often see treestar Mar 2015 #193
If you get right down to it, most DUers MineralMan Mar 2015 #206
She sounds like she's trying to win an election nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #8
If winning an election is about kissing some Bush ass. zeemike Mar 2015 #21
oh come on. She was asking for aid for New York who she represented as a senator. It was no still_one Mar 2015 #9
It's not what she did then that's the problem tularetom Mar 2015 #107
Does it give a warm and fuzzy to the Independents? yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #165
I guess we'll find out, won't we? tularetom Mar 2015 #191
The other Clinton's "compromise" got us NAFTA & the repeal of Glass-Steagal & 2008 Great Recession RiverLover Mar 2015 #10
Yup yup. "Reach across the aisle" is code for sell out to Rethugs. Enough is enough... InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #19
Didn't Bill Clinton use to say... Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #23
As I think I will have to do a lot treestar Mar 2015 #75
The ACA is an example of what can be achieved by compromise. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #11
Hillary "compromised" on the Iraq War Resolution Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #28
So did Kerry and Biden yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #166
Or he could have demanded "single payer or nothing". zeemike Mar 2015 #31
The votes were not there for a public option. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #40
Um, not the case. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #45
60-39 in the Senate to stop filibuster; Lieberman would not have voted for public option. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #59
So Joe Liberman held us hostage? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #128
Yep. One of many reasons why the guy is unpopular here, to say the least (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #132
And the Democratic "leadership" was helpless? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #139
Each Senator is an individual treestar Mar 2015 #143
Ben Nelson too. The Democratic Senators had to give him a bunch of incentives to get his vote. yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #170
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. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #60
The Heritage Foundation & Republican Party.... bvar22 Mar 2015 #199
Fia enough but I think he stared with public option or nothing treestar Mar 2015 #77
The right wing fighting against ir is just "don't throw us in the brier patch" psy ops. zeemike Mar 2015 #110
no way the right wing got what they wanted treestar Mar 2015 #113
Well the insurance industry got what they wanted. zeemike Mar 2015 #122
It was a tawdry bribe for them to allow Obamacare to be passed. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #136
Totally disagree treestar Mar 2015 #138
Does not matter how sick the people are they still are allowed to keep 30%. zeemike Mar 2015 #141
Yep. It was a simple bribe. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #153
And once they have maxed that out Medicare is next. zeemike Mar 2015 #179
The mandate must have been for Democratic legislators JonLP24 Mar 2015 #106
My rates have gone up by over $1000 a year since ACA. And my benefits have decreased. Millions of us whereisjustice Mar 2015 #154
W's lack of zentrum Mar 2015 #26
Barf n/t hibbing Mar 2015 #30
Read the rest of the article. One of the 99 Mar 2015 #33
How many anti-Hillary OPs does it take to generate an acceptably liberal ... JoePhilly Mar 2015 #35
so we shouldn't criticize your beloved hillary because it's not cali Mar 2015 #43
Did I say you should stop your crusade ... oops ... I mean criticism? JoePhilly Mar 2015 #46
What is the DNC doing about grooming candidates? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #48
Why are you waiting for a group you hate to create this acceptably liberal candidate? JoePhilly Mar 2015 #54
Hate? I hate the DNC? really? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #61
Yet no answer to my actual question ... JoePhilly Mar 2015 #67
Why am I waiting? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #119
DLC has taken over the DNC. RiverLover Mar 2015 #70
The should call it the "hollowed" place, not hallowed Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #124
Did Howard Dean generate Obama out of the dust? treestar Mar 2015 #81
We are ultimately responsible for who we pick! treestar Mar 2015 #79
Are you patronizing me? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #115
Don't understand your response treestar Mar 2015 #117
So, who are "we" supporting? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #121
We can support anyone right now treestar Mar 2015 #133
OK, are you pro-Hillary? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #137
I never held my nose to vote for any Democrat. treestar Mar 2015 #140
It must be much more than have been posted on DU so far!!! treestar Mar 2015 #78
I wish I knew. I'd stay up all night to do it. morningfog Mar 2015 #186
Praising Dubya - Expect More Of This Third Way Claptrap Should HRC Become President cantbeserious Mar 2015 #36
She's praising GWB because he didn't make her fight, lol. closeupready Mar 2015 #38
Ceremonial niceties DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #49
Well, she sure was bi-partisan in supporting and voting for Bush's wars. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #53
+1 Oilwellian Mar 2015 #123
The enemies are the Christofascists, not the Clintons......FOCUS, or be divided and conquered. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #55
Third Way "New Democrats" divided us, and it all began with The Clintons RiverLover Mar 2015 #84
Sorry, in some ways the Clintons have been the enemy. NAFTA cali Mar 2015 #152
Are we supposed to just grin and take one for the blue team again? hedda_foil Mar 2015 #58
Extremists don't compromise. cheyanne Mar 2015 #71
And when Bush said give me the AUMF to destroy Iraq that had no WMDs Geronimoe Mar 2015 #73
And YET…. Mrs. Clinton wasn't under a rock when at the State Dept... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #74
As if Android3.14 Mar 2015 #76
The art of compromise, indeed - Hill praises the man whose criminal negligence led to 9/11. leveymg Mar 2015 #80
Nominating her will be the suicide of the Democratic Party. nt LittleBlue Mar 2015 #83
Yep. /nt RiverLover Mar 2015 #91
^^^^^^^^^ ~ THIS ~ ^^^^^^^^^ NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #127
So a "third party" is an option?!? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #134
I would love to see Hillary Clinton run on a third party ticket.... NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #142
+1 lol, excellent idea, besides that's probably where her email is being hosted whereisjustice Mar 2015 #169
The multimillionaires who run the party win either way - closeupready Mar 2015 #184
I'm Shocked! 2banon Mar 2015 #85
By this definition Obama praised Ronald Reagan when he ran for President n/t Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #88
Here is Obama in Time Magazine, praising Tom Coburn voluntarily... Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #111
Ever notice that they do not have trouble with bi-partisanship when it is a bill to free up Dustlawyer Mar 2015 #93
Food stamps had popular support...George MCGovern and Bob Dole were its biggest proponents DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #109
That was a reasonable statement. Badass Liberal Mar 2015 #94
How about even ONE example of a Republican saying similar things about Bill Clinton or eridani Mar 2015 #95
How difficult could it have been for George W. Bush? JonLP24 Mar 2015 #96
If Hillary was reaching across the aisle, she very well may have been reaching to Democrats. Scuba Mar 2015 #98
Let's not forget she voted for Bush's War in Iraqi awake Mar 2015 #101
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #103
Ha! Oilwellian Mar 2015 #129
Since I can't respond to your pal who got a hide what is a "premature organism"? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #148
Hillary Warhawk Clinton is running as the Anti-Obama: "Republicans? She'll Work With 'Em!" NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #116
Barack Obama on Tom Coburn, in Time Magazine, 2013..... Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #126
she praises bush, obama acts like bush. where the outrage over that lol nt msongs Mar 2015 #118
I'm getting a kick out of your pro-Clinton posts. /nt AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #188
W's idea of a compromise is anthrax. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #125
trying to get RW votes? heaven05 Mar 2015 #131
As well she should! KansDem Mar 2015 #135
Ahahahahah and holy shit, she's recycling the "reach across the aisle" bullshit, or as centrists say whereisjustice Mar 2015 #144
... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #155
Hillary is a Republcan-lite woman. Can't trust her anymore. TRoN33 Mar 2015 #145
That’s it? That’s the “praise” claimed in the headline? NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #146
Of all the leaders worthy of emulation? She chose GW Bush. That is the fact you are denying. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #159
There was no “emulating” anyone. She was discussing her own ability to reach across the aisle. NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #162
This message was self-deleted by its author NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #163
Just like Bush compromised the truth about Iraq resulting in slaughter of 100,000 people whereisjustice Mar 2015 #147
For a few short days in the aftermath of 9-11... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #161
I'm old enough to remember Ted Kennedy praising George Wallace DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #167
Do you have a link to the speech where he allegedly praised Wallace? Zorra Mar 2015 #174
That's all that exists on the internet... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #195
I live in NYC and said nice things about Bush after 9/11. Nearly choked on it but I did. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #168
Of all the people in the world to emulate, is GW Bush her first choice? Is she running as Repub? whereisjustice Mar 2015 #172
Oh she said something off thr top of her head. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #176
I don't see anything about emulation of Dubya treestar Mar 2015 #194
Sounds like Obama's praise of Bush* and bipartisanship eom TransitJohn Mar 2015 #177
also from the Time article guillaumeb Mar 2015 #180
More compromise means another step backwards. Way to go Hill!!!!! glinda Mar 2015 #187
Thirdwayer's idea of a compromise: Baitball Blogger Mar 2015 #189
lol - Conservative Democrats are now lining up to praise GW Bush. Hillary's lurch to the whereisjustice Mar 2015 #197
She said when she started her non-campaign that she'll be more appeasing than Obama Doctor_J Mar 2015 #198
She also loves Kissinger. She cam kiss R butt all she wants, they still won't like her peacebird Mar 2015 #205
K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2015 #207
W. and Kissinger are war criminals in my book JEB Mar 2015 #208

Autumn

(44,521 posts)
2. Yay! More reaching across the aisle! Here's an idea,
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:33 AM
Mar 2015

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

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
14. oh god. can she be more tone deaf to what she is supposed to be? But then, her hubby is
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:56 AM
Mar 2015

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.

LiberalArkie

(15,666 posts)
112. I have thought of that. That is what the tea party did, and the religious folk did.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:22 AM
Mar 2015

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)
175. Centrists should go back to the Republican Party. Their only purpose as Democrats
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:06 PM
Mar 2015

is to keeping moving both political parties to the right.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
3. Right after 911 aid for New York
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:34 AM
Mar 2015

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



OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
5. Heaven forbid a Senator from NY cajole a Republican for some much needed money
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:38 AM
Mar 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
6. Like Chris Christie and Obama after Hurricane Sandy
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:43 AM
Mar 2015

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)
16. what is the point of praising W.? and for what? this has nothing to do
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:57 AM
Mar 2015

with compromise. this is reaching out to the right.

MineralMan

(146,023 posts)
20. So, you don't think there was a need for federal funding after 9/11?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:01 AM
Mar 2015

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)
34. one more time: we're talking about a speech she gave the other day
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015

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)
41. That's why she appears self-serving!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:12 AM
Mar 2015
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.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
89. So you don't think Bush would have given federal aid to New York City if Hillary
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:56 AM
Mar 2015

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)
86. Gosh, I think pointing out that W would do that which current Republicans refuse to do paints
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:53 AM
Mar 2015

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'.

Jon82

(92 posts)
44. Part of the problem is lack of compromise
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:16 AM
Mar 2015

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.

 

namastea42

(96 posts)
4. Hillary, striving for that Warm, Purple Place
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:37 AM
Mar 2015

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.


InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,091 posts)
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?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:57 AM
Mar 2015

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
82. Do you think Warren is ready to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Yes we can do better,
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:50 AM
Mar 2015

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.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
97. Did I say it needs to be a woman? I look for qualifications, and yes Joe Biden is qualified.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:03 AM
Mar 2015

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)
105. Our party can only do better in 2016 with Joe in the race with Hillary
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM
Mar 2015

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)
203. I do not have a problem with Joe Biden or others getting into the primaries, I don't
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:16 PM
Mar 2015

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)
151. I like Joe Biden.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

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)
201. I know that Clinton isn't who we need in 2016
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:04 PM
Mar 2015

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)
156. Well who can win in the General?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:33 PM
Mar 2015

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)
178. Joe Biden
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:16 PM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
182. Joe Biden will be called a centrist or corporatist, just as Obama is.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:36 PM
Mar 2015

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)
185. I was responding to the question "Well who can win in the General?"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:55 PM
Mar 2015

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)
202. Anyone who runs.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:08 PM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
7. Well, the example she gave was of getting GWB to cooperate.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:45 AM
Mar 2015

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

(91,419 posts)
12. amazing isn't it. Her job was to help the state she was representing, and she is being criticized
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:55 AM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
17. It seems to me like some people are looking for anything they
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:58 AM
Mar 2015

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)
65. Well she actually spoke to that Evil George Dubya Bush!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:35 AM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
92. It's pretty amazing, I think.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:59 AM
Mar 2015

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)
18. bzzzt no. I am criticizing her for the gratuitous praise of W.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:59 AM
Mar 2015

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

(91,419 posts)
29. right. you want money for your state so she should have insulted the President who could facilitate
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:07 AM
Mar 2015

access to it. Makes perfect sense

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
39. that's ridiculous. You don't seem to grasp that the absense of praise is not
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:11 AM
Mar 2015

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
66. Can't we praise him when he did right?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:36 AM
Mar 2015

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)
99. And yet when I question your praise of the Pope, a bigoted anti choice activist, you say 'So sue me'
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:05 AM
Mar 2015

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)
108. Could be interesting to see you two discuss this
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:12 AM
Mar 2015

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)
120. You are making all of that up. I have, personally met two Popes and exhanged letters with a third.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:32 AM
Mar 2015

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)
130. But you're still saying the pope should never be praised
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:49 AM
Mar 2015

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)
181. and you are right. although he does say good things they just don't outweigh
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:33 PM
Mar 2015

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)
157. For crying out loud we all know you would have
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:35 PM
Mar 2015

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)
63. Yeah I think some people expect
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:33 AM
Mar 2015

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

(40,365 posts)
183. She praised Kissenger
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:40 PM
Mar 2015

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)
192. What did she praise?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:45 PM
Mar 2015

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

(40,365 posts)
204. Perhaps you need to know more about Kissinger
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:25 PM
Mar 2015

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...

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
42. what the fuck? So her not praising him in a speech 14 years after the fact
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:13 AM
Mar 2015

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)
47. Most Americans want a government that works towards compromise.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:20 AM
Mar 2015

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)
51. lol. nice skirting of the point I made in my post.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:23 AM
Mar 2015

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)
56. Which President of the other party should she have mentioned?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015

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)
196. It's always easy to back the favorite of the big money. Back Wall Street over
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:56 PM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
104. Nobody is going to cooperate with anybody but all candidates need to pay homage to bipartisanship...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM
Mar 2015

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)
69. Exactly!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:38 AM
Mar 2015


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!

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
90. Exactly.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:56 AM
Mar 2015

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)
22. She DID NOT "get" GWB to cooperate
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:02 AM
Mar 2015


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.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
32. Sorry she can't see her own self-serving interests
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015

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)
52. Worry less about me "personally" and focus on the topic
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:26 AM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
57. Oh, dear. You don't like my personal opinion.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015

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.

MineralMan

(146,023 posts)
102. How did I make anything personal, pray tell?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:06 AM
Mar 2015


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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
72. Bush was self serving in that too
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:40 AM
Mar 2015

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)
114. I agree, except the World Trade Center...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:24 AM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
150. The WTC also contains many, many people who
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
158. It would be pretty unfortunate to be caught in a building ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:36 PM
Mar 2015

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

MineralMan

(146,023 posts)
160. I'd think so.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:41 PM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
164. Well, yeah, defining folks by their occupations doesn't strike me as particularly nice or liberal...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:46 PM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
171. But, see...they worked in the WTC.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:00 PM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
173. I am out to a movie...I might start a thread asking if it really possible for your occupation ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:03 PM
Mar 2015

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)
193. Yes, and includes the references to "Wall Street" we often see
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:49 PM
Mar 2015

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

(146,023 posts)
206. If you get right down to it, most DUers
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:36 PM
Mar 2015

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.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
21. If winning an election is about kissing some Bush ass.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:01 AM
Mar 2015

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

still_one

(91,419 posts)
9. oh come on. She was asking for aid for New York who she represented as a senator. It was no
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:53 AM
Mar 2015

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)
107. It's not what she did then that's the problem
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:12 AM
Mar 2015

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)
165. Does it give a warm and fuzzy to the Independents?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:48 PM
Mar 2015

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)
191. I guess we'll find out, won't we?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:33 PM
Mar 2015

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)
10. The other Clinton's "compromise" got us NAFTA & the repeal of Glass-Steagal & 2008 Great Recession
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:54 AM
Mar 2015

NO way. Not again!!!!!!

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,091 posts)
19. Yup yup. "Reach across the aisle" is code for sell out to Rethugs. Enough is enough...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:00 AM
Mar 2015

This will only get people more energized to draft Elizabeth.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
23. Didn't Bill Clinton use to say...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM
Mar 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
75. As I think I will have to do a lot
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:42 AM
Mar 2015

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)
11. The ACA is an example of what can be achieved by compromise.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:55 AM
Mar 2015

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.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
166. So did Kerry and Biden
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:50 PM
Mar 2015

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

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
31. Or he could have demanded "single payer or nothing".
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015

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)
40. The votes were not there for a public option.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:12 AM
Mar 2015

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

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
45. Um, not the case.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:17 AM
Mar 2015

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)
59. 60-39 in the Senate to stop filibuster; Lieberman would not have voted for public option.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015
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

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
139. And the Democratic "leadership" was helpless?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:55 AM
Mar 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
143. Each Senator is an individual
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:01 PM
Mar 2015

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)
170. Ben Nelson too. The Democratic Senators had to give him a bunch of incentives to get his vote.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:58 PM
Mar 2015

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

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
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.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:32 AM
Mar 2015

treestar

(82,383 posts)
77. Fia enough but I think he stared with public option or nothing
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:45 AM
Mar 2015

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)
110. The right wing fighting against ir is just "don't throw us in the brier patch" psy ops.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:19 AM
Mar 2015

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.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
122. Well the insurance industry got what they wanted.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:34 AM
Mar 2015

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)
136. It was a tawdry bribe for them to allow Obamacare to be passed.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:52 AM
Mar 2015

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)
138. Totally disagree
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:55 AM
Mar 2015

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)
141. Does not matter how sick the people are they still are allowed to keep 30%.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:00 PM
Mar 2015

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

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
153. Yep. It was a simple bribe.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

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)
179. And once they have maxed that out Medicare is next.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:28 PM
Mar 2015

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

(29,322 posts)
106. The mandate must have been for Democratic legislators
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 AM
Mar 2015

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)
154. My rates have gone up by over $1000 a year since ACA. And my benefits have decreased. Millions of us
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:26 PM
Mar 2015

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

(9,865 posts)
26. W's lack of
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:04 AM
Mar 2015

…….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.

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
33. Read the rest of the article.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015
“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.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
35. How many anti-Hillary OPs does it take to generate an acceptably liberal ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:09 AM
Mar 2015

... alternative candidate?

What's the current estimate?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
43. so we shouldn't criticize your beloved hillary because it's not
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:14 AM
Mar 2015

"productive", in YOUR eyes.

good luck with that. have fun.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
46. Did I say you should stop your crusade ... oops ... I mean criticism?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:17 AM
Mar 2015

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)
48. What is the DNC doing about grooming candidates?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:20 AM
Mar 2015

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)
54. Why are you waiting for a group you hate to create this acceptably liberal candidate?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:27 AM
Mar 2015

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)
61. Hate? I hate the DNC? really?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:32 AM
Mar 2015

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)
67. Yet no answer to my actual question ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:36 AM
Mar 2015

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)
119. Why am I waiting?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:31 AM
Mar 2015

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)
70. DLC has taken over the DNC.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:39 AM
Mar 2015
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/

treestar

(82,383 posts)
79. We are ultimately responsible for who we pick!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:48 AM
Mar 2015

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)
115. Are you patronizing me?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:28 AM
Mar 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
117. Don't understand your response
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:30 AM
Mar 2015

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
140. I never held my nose to vote for any Democrat.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:57 AM
Mar 2015

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)
78. It must be much more than have been posted on DU so far!!!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:46 AM
Mar 2015

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



 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
38. She's praising GWB because he didn't make her fight, lol.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:11 AM
Mar 2015

Why fight, if compromising your constituency is easier?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,669 posts)
49. Ceremonial niceties
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:21 AM
Mar 2015

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)
53. Well, she sure was bi-partisan in supporting and voting for Bush's wars.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:27 AM
Mar 2015

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

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
55. The enemies are the Christofascists, not the Clintons......FOCUS, or be divided and conquered.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:29 AM
Mar 2015
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.....

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
84. Third Way "New Democrats" divided us, and it all began with The Clintons
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:51 AM
Mar 2015
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?



 

cali

(114,904 posts)
152. Sorry, in some ways the Clintons have been the enemy. NAFTA
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

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

(16,352 posts)
58. Are we supposed to just grin and take one for the blue team again?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015

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)
71. Extremists don't compromise.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:39 AM
Mar 2015

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)
73. And when Bush said give me the AUMF to destroy Iraq that had no WMDs
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:41 AM
Mar 2015

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)
74. And YET…. Mrs. Clinton wasn't under a rock when at the State Dept...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:42 AM
Mar 2015

… 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)
76. As if
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:43 AM
Mar 2015

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)
80. The art of compromise, indeed - Hill praises the man whose criminal negligence led to 9/11.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:49 AM
Mar 2015

Her moral compromise isn't compromised.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
127. ^^^^^^^^^ ~ THIS ~ ^^^^^^^^^
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:36 AM
Mar 2015

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.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
184. The multimillionaires who run the party win either way -
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:43 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
111. Here is Obama in Time Magazine, praising Tom Coburn voluntarily...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:20 AM
Mar 2015

"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/

Dustlawyer

(10,486 posts)
93. Ever notice that they do not have trouble with bi-partisanship when it is a bill to free up
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:01 AM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
109. Food stamps had popular support...George MCGovern and Bob Dole were its biggest proponents
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:16 AM
Mar 2015

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

 

Badass Liberal

(57 posts)
94. That was a reasonable statement.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM
Mar 2015

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)
95. How about even ONE example of a Republican saying similar things about Bill Clinton or
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM
Mar 2015

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

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
96. How difficult could it have been for George W. Bush?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM
Mar 2015

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.

awake

(3,226 posts)
101. Let's not forget she voted for Bush's War in Iraqi
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:05 AM
Mar 2015

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)

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
116. Hillary Warhawk Clinton is running as the Anti-Obama: "Republicans? She'll Work With 'Em!"
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:29 AM
Mar 2015

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)
126. Barack Obama on Tom Coburn, in Time Magazine, 2013.....
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:35 AM
Mar 2015

"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/

 

heaven05

(18,124 posts)
131. trying to get RW votes?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:50 AM
Mar 2015

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)
135. As well she should!
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:52 AM
Mar 2015

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)
144. Ahahahahah and holy shit, she's recycling the "reach across the aisle" bullshit, or as centrists say
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:09 PM
Mar 2015

she's keeping her powder dry.

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

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,669 posts)
155. ...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:30 PM
Mar 2015
"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

NYC Liberal

(20,110 posts)
146. That’s it? That’s the “praise” claimed in the headline?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:16 PM
Mar 2015

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.

NYC Liberal

(20,110 posts)
162. There was no “emulating” anyone. She was discussing her own ability to reach across the aisle.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:44 PM
Mar 2015

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)

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
147. Just like Bush compromised the truth about Iraq resulting in slaughter of 100,000 people
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:17 PM
Mar 2015

and trillions of dollars. The end result was ISIS.

Hillary seems determined to do the same.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,669 posts)
161. For a few short days in the aftermath of 9-11...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:42 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
174. Do you have a link to the speech where he allegedly praised Wallace?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:06 PM
Mar 2015

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

(99,669 posts)
195. That's all that exists on the internet...
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:50 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
168. I live in NYC and said nice things about Bush after 9/11. Nearly choked on it but I did.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:57 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
176. Oh she said something off thr top of her head.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:09 PM
Mar 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
194. I don't see anything about emulation of Dubya
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:50 PM
Mar 2015

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

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
180. also from the Time article
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 01:32 PM
Mar 2015

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.



Baitball Blogger

(46,390 posts)
189. Thirdwayer's idea of a compromise:
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 03:11 PM
Mar 2015

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)
197. lol - Conservative Democrats are now lining up to praise GW Bush. Hillary's lurch to the
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:01 PM
Mar 2015

right has obviously inspired their true nature.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
198. She said when she started her non-campaign that she'll be more appeasing than Obama
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:03 PM
Mar 2015

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

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
205. She also loves Kissinger. She cam kiss R butt all she wants, they still won't like her
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:33 PM
Mar 2015

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

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
208. W. and Kissinger are war criminals in my book
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:21 AM
Mar 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton Praises G...