Hillary Clinton throws support behind fast-food workers in surprise call

[brooklynite]

Source: MSNBC

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton threw her support behind the movement for higher wages in dramatic fashion, making a surprise phone call Sunday to a convention of fast-food workers to declare: “I want to be your champion.”

“No one who works an honest job in America should have to live in poverty,” Clinton told the startled crowd of around 1,000 low-wage cooks and cashiers who had gathered at a conference center here to plot the campaign’s next steps. “Every worker in every state and every city deserves a fair wage and a real voice on the job.”

“Together, we will change the direction of this great country,” Clinton pledged.

The prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton had said previously that she supports raising the minimum wage. But her decision to communicate directly and personally with the labor-backed movement’s foot-soldiers—though she stopped short of endorsing their goal of $15 an hour—gives added momentum to an effort that already has amassed an impressive list of victories since launching less than two years ago.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-support-fast-food-workers

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

2. Something to notice: "stopped short from endorsing their goal of $15 a hour"

Says volumes.

Bernie already endorses the minimum wage increase, and goes further to add a few things we ought to have.

[billhicks76]

17. Bush Loving Hillary Done

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/my-prediction-bernie-sanders-will-win-the-white-house.html

[Divernan]

38. Fair dues: props to whichever of her 237 aides came up with that idea.

I'm hoping that those workers involved enough to protest are savy enough to see through her present words to her past deeds, and to the loyalties she owes to those who have funded her to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Talk is cheap, as we all know, it's the future actions for which millions have been paid.

+ Ms. Clinton will never be able to rise from her present poor net favorability ratings. All the good publicity about her is past (from her flaks), while her support (being based purely on PR, sheer fluff) was a mile wide and an inch deep. The more that voters get to see her actual record, the more they’ll distrust her words. That reason she’d be a weak general-election candidate is: she’s not at all a trustworthy person (except by her financial backers), and there’s nothing she’ll be able to do at this late date to convince general-election voters that she is. The trust issue is so bad for her, that no matter how much money is spent on her campaigns, it’ll be like trying to paddle a boat not in water but in air — there won’t be the traction that’s needed to get her to being the first person past the finish-line in the boat-race. That boat has already been sold to the highest bidder, even before the race begins. She can evade, but she cannot hide, now that the contest has actually started. As more Democrats learn about this, they’ll turn away. Too many Democrats will avoid voting in the final, the general-election contest, or else will protest-vote for some third-party nominee; whereas the Republican nominee, whomever he is, will clearly be Republican in more than just his official designation.

By contrast to Clinton: if Sanders is the Democrat, then voter-turnout on Election Day on the Democratic line will be enormous. And turnout in a Presidential election is crucial also in a much broader sense: it largely determines which of the two Parties will control both the Senate and especially the House (where everybody is up for election every two years). Even if Clinton were to win (which is unlikely), she would then be dealing in 2017 with a strongly Republican Congress, because of 2016’s resulting depressed Democratic voter-turnout. By contrast: if Sanders is the nominee, then not only will he win, but he will possibly (maybe even likely) be dealing with a Democratic Congress in 2017, by virtue of his drawing so many Democrats to the polls on Election Day 2016.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/my-prediction-bernie-sanders-will-win-the-white-house.html
2 interesting comments following this OP link:

CorHe5 hours ago
#14
"—though she stopped short of endorsing their goal of $15 an hour—"

Let me translate this: I'm pandering to say I support your group in exchange of trying to get you to vote for me. I don't really endorse $15, I just believe you're stupid enough to hear me say I support you for your vote. NOT that you will get anything near $15 if you elect me. I will sell you out and you'll be saying "WTF just happened" when you get maybe a $1 raise, but I already got your vote. Boom.
1 reply

AP/IL4 hours ago

#14.1

In reply to: CorHe #14

Unfortunately you're probably right. Now if Elizabeth Warren were the one speaking here we would know she really means it.

[Scootaloo]

26. Also, "no comment" when asked about the death penalty

I think Clinton's tactic this round is to say a lot of nice-sounding things without anything committal and let the voters se whatever they want to see in her.

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Yup. That sort of open-ended strategy has worked quite well in recent elections

Just as we've seen an increasing number of judicial nominees who appear to have no past, I expect that we'll be seeing more and more Rorschach candidates for political office.

[nichomachus]

33. Just like Obama

Smoke, mirrors, and carefully crafted speeches, but don't look behind the green curtain. There's nothing there. When you try to say he didn't deliver on a promise, the Fast Response Team is quick to tell you he never promised that. Then, you come to realize he never really promised anything -- just smoke and pretty speeches.

[JDPriestly]

3. "a phone call."

"to communicate directly and personally"?

A phone call? Surely she could spare a few hours to appear in person.

It's a nice gesture but couldn't she afford the airfare?

[Divernan]

35. Not HRC's fault that Uber doesn't offer private jets!

[paulkienitz]

4. this illustrates what makes Hillary better than any R

She may not be at all at home on the left, but she can be pushed to the left.

[ibewlu606]

10. B.S.!

The question that needs to be asked is, why does she have to be pushed to the left in the first place? I thought she was supposed to be a Democrat. This is just another example of HRC sticking her finger in the air to gauge which way the current political wind is blowing.

[OKNancy]

15. wrong.. she has been behind a minimum wage increase for years

read my post down-thread.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

39. "Stopped short of endorsing their goal of $15 an hour"

If she has been behind the minimum wage, then she shouldn't have stopped short.

Sorry, but Bernie has already fully endorsed a minimum wage, and goes further.

[Scootaloo]

28. I'd rather have a candidate who's already there. n/t

[paulkienitz]

34. we all would

But a wind-driven candidate who can be moved is better than one who can't be moved. Hillary clearly recognizes that the wind is blowing our way and sounds ready to inch leftwards as much as she has to in order to win.

[Scootaloo]

36. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Iliyah]

5. K & R

[SmittynMo]

6. I smell total bullshit

And I think I know where it's coming from?

"Though she stopped short of endorsing their goal of $15 an hour"?

[Sunlei]

7. That is very bold of Mrs. Clinton to show support. wage raise is ignored by most for to many years

“That a woman who’s running for president gives a s— that they matter enough, and their demand is significant enough for her to call and say, I want to be your champion—I think it’s a huge boost,” said Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which organized the convention and has played a leading behind-the-scenes role in the movement.

[heaven05]

8. damn right she has

it's that or nothing. Purely the right political move, nothing else

[closeupready]

9. When she was on Walmart's Board of Directors, what'd she do for them?

What did she do for minimum wage workers at Walmart for the six years she served on their Board?

[L0oniX]

12. Well things were differnet "way back then". Now she is just like the rest of us....

NOT !

[L0oniX]

11. Calculation is ...obvious.

[OKNancy]

13. Some of you don't know the truth of the matter

It's just knee-jerk reactions. Increasing the minimum wage is not a new position for her at all.


In the U.S. Senate

Hillary Clinton fought to tie the minimum wage to future increases in congressional salaries. Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act to bind future salary increases for Congress to mandatory increases in the federal minimum wage. Under the provisions of the legislation, the federal minimum wage would be “automatically increased” by “a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year…” Speaking to the importance of her bill, Senator Clinton said, “We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it’s critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too.”

Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced legislation to increase the federal minimum wage. Hillary Clinton’s Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. Introducing her 2006 bill, Senator Clinton stated: “I ask my colleagues to recognize the moral aspect of this issue. It is simply wrong to pay people a wage that they can barely live on… We should raise the federal minimum wage so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty. It is past time to make this investment in our children and families.” Senator Clinton’s Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2007 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.85 to $9.50 an hour.

Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times and consistently voted to support it. Over the course of her time in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to raise the federal minimum wage in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007. Senator Clinton opposed Republican efforts to weaken the minimum wage, and she repeatedlybacked Democratic efforts to raise it. Although she opposed the Iraq funding bill it was folded into, Clinton cosponsored the original version of the Fair Minimum Wage Act that increased the minimum wage for the first time in ten years, from $5.85 to $7.25 an hour. It was one of the five bills Senator Clinton cosponsored to raise the minimum wage.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/

[JoePhilly]

18. They don't care to know the truth. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

19. Interesting source. A full-time anti-Hillary-meme killer

David Brock's Army of "Nerd Virgins" Has Hillary's Back
Inside the former Clinton antagonist's operation to destroy the anti-Hillary memes he once unleashed.

—By Patrick Caldwell

...

As Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run, Correct the Record keeps constant watch for any conceivable attacks against her, and then aggressively beats them back before they take hold.

...
Hillary Clinton has always had a rocky relationship with the press, thanks in part to dealing with conservative smear artists like the young Brock. Correct the Record reflects her prickly approach to media relations. The group spent much of the early summer sending out press releases touting the sales of Clinton's book and tweeting about stories that questioned the numbers. When New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column about the lavish speaking fees commanded by Hillary and daughter Chelsea, Correct fired back with a dossier on Dowd, highlighting her own speaking fees.

But this strategy could backfire. Hillary has always struggled with the perception that she is inauthentic and quick to become defensive; being shielded by a group that pounces on every slight could reinforce that image.
...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record

[OKNancy]

20. Yes it's a good source. You won't find that anything I posted was untruthful.

Thanks for posting a nine-month old article though. Turns out there is not perception problem.
It's the go-to site for many.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. It's basically her public relations firm masquerading as some sort of fact-check site

I think it's fine for a candidate to correct the record. Less admirable is the fact that it's not easily identifiable by its domain name as a source with a very clear agenda. (Of course, when you actually go to the site, it's appallingly obvious.)

And what's the matter with a nine-month-old article? Clinton's horrible vote for the IWR is even older than that. Just because it's old doesn't necessarily make it less valid.

[nichomachus]

29. So, is that the cutoff

We can only talk about what Hillary's done in the last nine months? Is it like a Clintonesque Statute of Limitations or something? That's convenient.

[Divernan]

37. But, but, but women are pregnant for 9 months! So this must be a sexist limitation!

Where are my smelling salts? My fainting couch? Has anyone seen my pearls?

[Android3.14]

27. How many are here?

Probably not many people, but the profiles needed to game the jury system would be quite high.

It takes a bunch of sockpuppets to raze a village.

[m-lekktor]

47. yep, it's Brocks guilt gift to Hillary to make up

for the"damage" he caused the Clintons when he was a right wing hatchet man and Clinton scandal monger in the early 90's. He's in redemption mode full swing!!

[ibewlu606]

22. Wow!

It is so empathetic of her to think that "everyday Americans" can make it on $9.50 an hour. She has so much experience being "dead broke" when she and Bill left the White House. Those $250k speaking engagements came just in the nick of time to keep them from having to sleep under a bridge. But back to my original question, why does she have to be pushed to the left? I'm talking about the real left, not some neo-liberal, third way, corporate dodge to keep the dupes voting Democrat.

[OKNancy]

32. That was in 2006.

[freshwest]

42. OMG! She was for it before she was against it! Except she was never against it. I'm so confused! n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

14. If she needs some comfortable shoes...

... I know of someone who has a pair he never uses.

[ibewlu606]

24. Right on!

That was so awesome! You got a two-fer on that one.

[lunamagica]

16. K&R

[DirtyHippyBastard]

23. Unions?

[Android3.14]

25. Zero sum game - Thanks for nothin'

"though she stopped short of endorsing their goal of $15 an hour"

I bet she supports family values, the American Dream and freedom too.

Whatever.

[nichomachus]

31. It's called "triangulation." It's what the the Clinton Family Firm excels at.

It's also called "having your cake and eating it too."

[Hekate]

40. Amazing number of nasty unsubstantiated attacks in this thread, but HRC is going strong!

I've given up trying to inform those whose minds are made up. My late mother used to say, "Convince a fool against his will, he's of the same opinion still."

Speaking of mothers, during the Kenneth Starr investigations of her husband, I think HRC referenced her own mother's advice when she said she would hold her head up and rise above it. With the latest revelations about Hastert, do I really need to point out the unholy depths of lying and hypocrisy that were involved in the GOP accusations and persecution of the Clintons?

[jeff47]

44. Unsubstantiated like repeating her own statements?

Like her speech about how very bipartisan she would be? 'Cause we all know Republicans are totally lining up to vote for minimum wage increases.

How about her State Department fighting against a minimum wage increase in Haiti? (Post #41 in this thread)

Perhaps you can clarify when we should just blindly believe her speeches and ignore her long track record, versus her long track record shows she would be great even when she doesn't talk about a subject in her speeches?

[Divernan]

41. HRC's state department blocked minimum wage in crease In Haiti

Finally, Clinton’s State Department’s role in attempting to block a minimum wage increase in Haiti allows us to triangulate (so to speak) and speculate with some confidence on Clinton’s wishes vis-à-vis poor nations under the rule of oligarchs and corporate elites. State Department cables exposed by Wikileaks reveal that, according to The Nation, “[c]ontractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere.” (The Haitian assembly zones are free trade enclaves of the sort the Clintons advocate, where corporations are permitted to take advantage of the hemisphere’s cheapest labor without paying high tariffs—tiny versions of President Clinton’s NAFTA.)

Just weeks before the coup in Honduras, the State Department acted on behalf of a “tiny assembly zone elite” and intervened in the Haitian government’s plan to raise the wage. This was after President Clinton had already ravaged the island nation and enriched U.S. agricultural companies with a devastating trade deal that led to Haitians eating dirt cakes to survive.

This sort of engineering of regional politics in the service of the economic elite appears to be something of a hallmark of the Clinton camp. A case is being built that it’s the family business to cater to the global elite, despite the Clinton campaign’s salt-of-the-earth optics in Iowa and New Hampshire, which appears disingenuous in light of virtually everything else we know about Clinton. And with a growing list of Clinton associates being complicit, concerns about a President Clinton’s criteria for cabinet and agency appointments grow, as well.

Keeping wages down in places like Honduras and Haiti virtually ensure that those formerly decently paying, often unionized, jobs will never return to the U.S. Going to bat by proxy for Bechtel, a conglomerate with close ties to the GOP and the military industrial complex, doesn’t seem like the best use of the political talent of members of the Clintons’ braintrust. It becomes fair to ask, “Who do the Clintons work for?”

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Good for her.

[marble falls]

45. "Stopped short of $15/hr." I stop short of supporting her nomination. I'll vote her ONLY if she gets

the nomination. "Anyone but a Republican". That's my new motto.

[grahamhgreen]

46. Says the ex Walmart lawyer

[madokie]

48. That train done left the station

leaders lead

[grahamhgreen]

49. & losers lose.