HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Is Hillary Clinton a Neoc...

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:00 PM

 

Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?

As a U.S. senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton often followed a neocon-style foreign policy, backing the Iraq War, teaming up with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on an Afghan War “surge,” and staking out an even more hawkish stance than Gates on Libya, Robert Parry reports.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014 09:33 By Robert Parry, Consortium News

Most Democratic power-brokers appear settled on Hillary Clinton as their choice for President in 2016 – and she holds lopsided leads over potential party rivals in early opinion polls – but there are some warning flags flying, paradoxically, hoisted by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his praise for the former First Lady, U.S. senator and Secretary of State.

On the surface, one might think that Gates’s glowing commendations of Clinton would further burnish her standing as the odds-on next President of the United States, but strip away the fawning endorsements and Gates’s portrait of Clinton in his new memoir, Duty, is of a pedestrian foreign policy thinker who is easily duped and leans toward military solutions.

Indeed, for thoughtful and/or progressive Democrats, the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton could represent a step back from some of President Barack Obama’s more innovative foreign policy strategies, particularly his readiness to cooperate with the Russians and Iranians to defuse Middle East crises and his willingness to face down the Israel Lobby when it is pushing for heightened confrontations and war.

Based on her public record and Gates’s insider account, Clinton could be expected to favor a more neoconservative approach to the Mideast, one more in line with the traditional thinking of Official Washington and the belligerent dictates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton rarely challenged the conventional wisdom or resisted the use of military force to solve problems. She famously voted for the Iraq War in 2002 – falling for President George W. Bush’s bogus WMD case – and remained a war supporter until her position became politically untenable during Campaign 2008.

MORE...

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21794-is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite

95 replies, 9996 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite? (Original post)
Purveyor Feb 2014 OP
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #1
Purveyor Feb 2014 #2
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #3
Ash_F Feb 2014 #12
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #13
Ash_F Feb 2014 #15
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #16
Ash_F Feb 2014 #22
blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #24
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #50
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #45
Ash_F Feb 2014 #47
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #49
Ash_F Feb 2014 #53
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #57
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #58
Ash_F Feb 2014 #61
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #64
Ash_F Feb 2014 #67
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #68
Ash_F Feb 2014 #78
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #79
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #80
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #81
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #82
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #83
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #84
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #85
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #86
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #87
yeoman6987 Feb 2014 #29
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #44
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #46
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #51
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #59
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #60
imthevicar Feb 2014 #4
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #17
imthevicar Feb 2014 #34
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #35
imthevicar Feb 2014 #37
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #38
imthevicar Feb 2014 #39
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #40
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #5
peacebird Feb 2014 #6
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #8
Maedhros Feb 2014 #63
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #74
Maedhros Feb 2014 #77
Fumesucker Feb 2014 #94
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #18
peacebird Feb 2014 #27
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #65
peacebird Feb 2014 #69
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #70
peacebird Feb 2014 #71
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #72
imthevicar Feb 2014 #7
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #19
imthevicar Feb 2014 #32
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #73
imthevicar Feb 2014 #88
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #89
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #14
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #20
imthevicar Feb 2014 #33
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #48
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #42
ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2014 #56
Maedhros Feb 2014 #62
aquart Feb 2014 #9
Purveyor Feb 2014 #11
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #21
peacebird Feb 2014 #30
truedelphi Feb 2014 #54
aquart Feb 2014 #90
marble falls Feb 2014 #10
CFLDem Feb 2014 #26
blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #23
sellitman Feb 2014 #25
DiverDave Feb 2014 #28
Laelth Feb 2014 #31
elzenmahn Feb 2014 #43
hrmjustin Feb 2014 #36
Chan790 Feb 2014 #41
Kelvin Mace Feb 2014 #52
ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2014 #55
alarimer Feb 2014 #66
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #75
mike_c Feb 2014 #76
Myrina Feb 2014 #91
Tippy Feb 2014 #92
unrepentant progress Feb 2014 #93
TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #95

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:02 PM

1. HARDLY...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:08 PM

2. "Hardly" any doubt that she isn't... eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:09 PM

3. Prove it!

 

I just provided proof that it is FALSE!

to call her a Neocon is the ultimate foolishness..



and here is how her husband measures up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:40 AM

12. I checked out that site those are some really general issues

That makes it too easy.

Is she going to prosecute bank fraud?

Strengthen EPA regulations to oppose pipelines, chemical dumps and fracking?

Support socialized medicine?

Expand education spending?

Increase food assistance?

Reign in overseas military action?

Leash the NSA?

I'm going with probably definitely no. She is to the right of Obama. We can do better.

link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:42 AM

13. they use the same ones for everybody.....

 

She is NOT to the right of Obama...and I can prove it....can YOU prove otherwise...where is YOUR graph with hundreds of datapoints for reference?

As it stands right now....she beats all comers by the way....

Here is Obama's graph....she is NOT Right of Obama...period...and I have proof:




In fact there is an easy way to test it .....they also let you take the test yourself....go take it...see if you agree where it puts you....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:58 AM

15. Well, for one thing, she supported Iraq war vote 2002.

Obama spoke against it earlier that month. That is one pretty significant example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:16 AM

16. that is ONE issue....

 

we are talking for ALL categories combined. Overall score....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:42 AM

22. Ok, where has she been to the left of Obama?

I am asking you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:57 AM

24. <<Crickets>>

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:15 PM

50. Your crickets just died!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:50 PM

45. Look at the site...there are hundreds of issues to look at..

 

there are 25 categories full for both of them...I put up Obama's return and HERS...her's is to the left of him...she is a Populist Liberal and he is a MODERATE Liberal

President Obama:
Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Hillary Clinton:
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Or

Obama:
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)


Hillary Clinton:
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #45)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:57 PM

47. That is not how to make a case.

I did "look at the site". Name one position on which she has come out on the left of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:58 PM

49. Yes it is...I put up their findings...if you want to question them....go to the link provided

 

that is my SOURCE!

You asked for one...I got one..

President Obama:
Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Hillary Clinton:
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Or

Obama:
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)


Hillary Clinton:
Opposes topic13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Hillary Clinton FTMFW!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #49)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:20 PM

53. Um no.

Where have Hilary and Obama differed on gun policy?

As for free trade

"We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:32 PM

57. Um Yes...the evidence is there....

 

go see for yourself...look at the table at the bottom for evidence..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:34 PM

58. You are looking at ONE statement made YEARS ago...

 

go see the bulk of them for yourself.

It doesn't say "strongly" opposes does it?

Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #58)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:49 PM

61. And in comparing that list to Obama, how is Obama to the right? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:01 PM

64. Sigh...still doing your work for you....but here you go...

 

Export more goods stamped "Made in the USA": Favors topic 13
Negotiate a Transatlantic and a Trans-Pacific Partnership: Strongly Favors topic 13
Double our exports by 2014; starting with South Korea: Strongly Favors topic 13
People don’t want cheaper T-shirts if it costs their job: Opposes topic 13
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore: Opposes topic 13
Trade agreements mean we sell "Made in America" to millions: Strongly Favors topic 13
Double US exports via deals with Panama, Colombia, & S.Korea: Strongly Favors topic 13
NAFTA protects corporate profits; should protect labor: Opposes topic 13
Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements: Opposes topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:06 PM

67. This is not useful

On what specific issue, have they differed regarding free trade deals? They look about the same to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:09 PM

68. not useful because it disagrees with your narrative...

 

they DON'T look the same to me..(or did you also fail to notice that there's a scoring system there...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:16 PM

78. You haven't answered my question yet.

Not any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:18 PM

79. this discussion isn't about ME is it? I am not running for office...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:31 PM

80. Actually, it kinda is...

...because for one, you're depending on a single source for your information (journalism teaches to use multiple, verified sources), and because to be perfectly honest, you didn't answer his question (or the ones I posed earlier regarding Hillary's coziness with Big Money).

I've already said that if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. But please pardon my lack of enthusiasm - she's too much in the pocket of Big Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:38 PM

81. No it kinda isn't...and I am not allowing that to change the subject sorry to disappoint you...

 

She is NOT in the pocket of Big Money...please prove it beyond someone said so!

I can prove Otherwise...

Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


its utter bullshit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #81)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:48 PM

82. Not it's not utter bullshit...

...and I've already stated my points regarding her oh-so-reassuring speeches to the bankers.

You aren't disappointing me. I'm disappointed and disgusted with professional politicians in general, and Bill/Hillary are one of the personifications of the professional politician.

And again, do you have other sources besides your website?

I respect your right to believe whatever you want about her. If she's a hero to you, fine.

She's no hero to me. Sorry to disappoint you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:56 PM

83. YES based on the evidence I supplied...utter bullshit..

 

the sources are quotes, and votes etc. and are dated. It's not just their opinion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #83)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:06 PM

84. Sorry, Vanilla, but my statements stand...

...and as I stated, if she's a hero to you, fine.

You didn't convince me. But thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #84)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:09 PM

85. Sorry but MY statement stands...you have hype...I have evidence...

 

Nobody is going to take away your narrative don't worry...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #85)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:21 PM

86. I have no narrative to push...

...I call it as I see it. Your "evidence" is based upon a single website containing links to other sites/news sources. These sites/sources are selected based upon other's opinions of what is important and what is not. Were you involved in the selection of these sites for this website? Do you know their criteria?

It appears that you're trying to make the case that those of us on the left should enthusiastically get behind Hillary. If that's your thing, fine. Volunteer for her campaign. Go knock on doors. Donate $$, if you wish.

But I would suggest that before you get head-over-heels for Hillary, find out where her financial backing is coming from. By the time 2016 comes around, I'll bet that your going to see the same thing happen that has happened in elections past - the big banks and corporations (Goldman Sachs, B of A, Wells Fargo, etc.) are going to fund both sides, and Hillary is going to get a not-insignificant share of that cash. Which gets to my main point - you can vote for or against a candidate, but how do you vote against Goldman Sachs or B of A?

I've made my last statement on this topic. Don't worry - I'll vote for Hillary in 2016 if she's the nominee. But I'm holding my nose to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #86)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 11:40 PM

87. No none at all....you have NOTHING to back up this "claim" that she is in the pocket of Big Corp..

 

except for the fact that people talk about she was with Walmart for the final 6 yrs of Sam Walton's life. But that is only 6 YEARS of this woman's long illustrious career. You without any other evidence are passing information that is NOT factual based on only THAT.

I however have shown a number of examples that prove to the contrary. I would say in this case....my evidence weighs much more than yours....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:39 AM

29. Obama had it easy in 2002

 

He was not under any "test" to vote or not vote for the Iraq War. Most Democrats did vote for the war. Back then if you didn't, you were criticized as being unpatriotic and all kinds of nasty stuff. Plus, she used the evidence that was provided to her. It is so easy to criticize a vote when you had zero responsibility in it one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:41 PM

44. Proof? WHAT PROOF?

What data are these charts culled from? Who supplied the data, and who is interpreting it? These charts look too subjective to me to have any faith in them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:52 PM

46. Quite easy if you stop trying to kill the messenger and LOOK for yourself

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

they have been doing this since the 90's by the way...

(answered in previous post)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:15 PM

51. Point made - but I still think...

...that one's actions are a much more accurate measuring stick than their words or "policy positions". Her coziness to the Banks and Big Money don't endear me to her (or for that matter, her husband.) And personally - I'll enthusiastically get behind somebody who will have enough of name-your-gonads to actually put the JAMIE DIMONS and the rest of the banking criminals in prison where they belong. If I felt that a vote for Hillary was a vote against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the fraudsters, then I'd gladly volunteer for her - and those who sympathize or were part of #Occupy would, as well.

But I don't get that from her. I see a Corporate Democrat, a triangulator not that dissimilar from her husband.

As I stated in an earlier post, IF she's the nominee, then yes, I'll vote for her. I'll have to bring a gas mask with me to the polling place, but i'll vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:36 PM

59. ACTIONS meaning VOTES are there too!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:37 PM

60. she is NOT

 

Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:19 PM

4. Sit On the Wal-mart BOD.

 

DURING A RA! RA! SESSION While one of the wally world MEGA RICH owners rant about those "BLOOD SUCKING UNIONS!" YEAH you could be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:19 AM

17. Hillary Clinton was on that board for 6 yrs...UNTIL Sam Walton died!

 

Believe it or not...Walmart was an entirely different beast when Sam ran it.....Its what it is now because of his evil spawn....Just sayin"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 02:56 PM

34. No, It Wasn't...

 

Last edited Sat Feb 15, 2014, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Sammy boy was just as ruthless as his offspring. After loosing a court ruling they he had to pay his workers the OT he cheated them out of, He Issued those checks to his current and former employees alike. He then told his current employees that if they cashed them they were fired! Nice Guy Eah?

The Mistake in this statement had nothing to do with With Fact that Sam Walton was a Cheep Lying Bastard, (He Was.), Just with Some Details I glossed over, Sam Walton Cheated his employees out of the difference he Paid them $.50/hour and the Minimum wage at the time $1.10/hour, after the Minimum wage was extended to retail workers in 1963. He tried some financial trickery but eventually the courts saw through this and ruled in the favor of his employees. So, How did he cheat them? by telling the He'd fire them if they cashed the settlement Checks. What a wonderful man he was. NOT! The apples that came from his tree, as rotten as they are, did not fall far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 03:57 PM

35. Noooo not true...Sammy tried to buy American made products...

 

the spawn started the downward spiral of outsourcing...

As for your story....link please so I can read it for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 02:52 AM

37. My Bad, It was the Minimum Wage Law Under Kennedy, Not OT, That came later. He was still a bastard!

 

Around the time that the young Sam Walton opened his first stores, John Kennedy redeemed a presidential campaign promise by persuading Congress to extend the minimum wage to retail workers, who had until then not been covered by the law. Congress granted an exclusion, however, to small businesses with annual sales beneath $1 million -- a figure that in 1965 it lowered to $250,000.

Walton was furious. The mechanization of agriculture had finally reached the backwaters of the Ozark Plateau, where he was opening one store after another. The men and women who had formerly worked on small farms suddenly found themselves redundant, and he could scoop them up for a song, as little as 50 cents an hour. Now the goddamn federal government was telling him he had to pay his workers the $1.15 hourly minimum. Walton's response was to divide up his stores into individual companies whose revenues did not exceed the $250,000 threshold. Eventually, though, a federal court ruled that this was simply a scheme to avoid paying the minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay his workers the accumulated sums he owed them, plus a double-time penalty thrown in for good measure.

Wal-Mart cut the checks, but Walton also summoned the employees at a major cluster of his stores to a meeting. "I'll fire anyone who cashes the check," he told them.
http://boingboing.net/2009/09/11/story-about-wal-mart.html

And some more Bad news about your Hero.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/01/mr-sams-chintzy-treatment-of-workers-comes-home-to-roost.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 02:58 AM

38. Yeah well....using that to smear Hillary more than 20 yrs later?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 03:17 AM

39. RE:Sit On the Wal-mart BOD. POST Did she ever apologize for it?

 

I think Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 03:27 AM

40. she wasn't there then....

 

that was the point....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:23 PM

5. Couldn't you please stop undermining our possible Dem. candidate with right wing talking points.

Chris Matthews just showed how far ahead Hillary was of all the possible Rethug candidates. Sorry but loyal Dems should help boost up our candidate. You weren't singing the praises of another possible Dem Candidate which is perfectly alright. You were just bad mouthing our most possible candidate and giving ReThugs fodder to use against us/her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:38 PM

6. Now is the best time to air disagreements with possible candidates. Once they announce we are all

told not to trash a candidate, but before one becomes a candidate- why not talk frankly about pros and cons and discuss what we think about them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 08:21 PM

8. That post wasn't discussing pros and cons

It was just right wing talking points...all cons. I just think it was a little much for a Democratic site. At this rate everyone will hate Hillary and if the Dems hate her...how are we ever to win the election? The thoughts of not winning is too much to bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:51 PM

63. How will Democrats win the election?

 

By selecting a better candidate than Hillary in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:04 PM

74. But,but,but, there aren't any better than Hillary.

She's more prepared for the presidency than anyone else and should have no problem winning the presidency...if the Democrats would all get behind her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:54 PM

77. Electability is not the be-all and end-all of what makes a good candidate.

 

I want a Presidential candidate with solid Liberal principles, because those principles translate into action once elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 08:10 PM

94. Calling Hillary a Neocon-lite is hardly a "right wing talking point"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:21 AM

18. That is the point....this woman has been vetted ad nauseum.....

 

they've thrown everything at her and NOTHING sticks! She is a warrior! She knows HOW to win this fight...AND she has one of the best politicians (whether you liked his policies or not....he knows how to campaign) in the world as an ally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:26 AM

27. Sadly she is also one of the most polarizing, even among dems. I hate the "inevitability" stuff

Let's actually have multiple viable candidates, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:03 PM

65. How is Hillary NOT viable with a strong lead over ALL comers?

 

I'd say she is plenty "viable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:10 PM

69. You choose to pick one word instead of hearing what I said, which was how about multiple viable

candidates please?

I did not say she was not viable. i also siad she is extremely divisive across the entire electorate. many repubs will turn out simply to vote against her. As will a number of progressives, and independents.

Enough of 'inevitable', enough of 'dynasty'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #69)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:11 PM

70. No one is AS viable as she is right now....

 

How can it be a "dynasty" when she is a liberal and her husband is a moderate?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:17 PM

71. Good try. Thanks for playing. i will wait til we have primaries to pick someone to get behind.

This 'inevitability' BS is annoying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #71)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:24 PM

72. Yeah inevitable as in...NO ONE has EVER had as commanding a lead over the entire field

 

this far out in recorded history...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 07:39 PM

7. If the truth is too Much?

 

Then she shouldn't run. Politics works that way Don't you Know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:23 AM

19. Everything that CAN be "truth" thrown at you....has ALREADY been done to death

 

on this woman....she is practically impervious to those kinds of attacks now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:42 AM

32. A Fact Is Not an Attack.

 

A Fact is a Statement of undisputed Truth. She Has to Live with herself Not I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:25 PM

73. You don't know Republicans then do you?

 

FACTS mean nothing to them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 17, 2014, 03:11 PM

88. I don't give a Rat's ass what the GOP thinks.

 

As a Matter of fact, I don't give a rat's ass what the Demo party thinks either!
I just want what's best for the working folks, and a watered down Corporatist just doesn't cut it in My book!
Most of the party approved (Hacks) Pols are in for the money and power. The only time they pretend they care is election time. Cause as much as the deck is stacked they still have to lie, cheat, and throw enough Money around once every so often to fool us into re-electing their lame asses! And H.R-C. is one of the more Infamous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 17, 2014, 06:43 PM

89. Obviously, you don't give a rat's ass about the truth either

 

A corporatist? PUHLEASE!

Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:43 AM

14. This sounds like the same thing that was said about Hillary

...back in 2008, before her complacency (as demonstrated on Super Tuesday), ultimately cost her the nomination.

Hillary is not entitled to the nomination. She needs to earn it. Allowing her or any candidate an easy skate will only entice them to lean rightward. We need to push her to the left - and if she won't budge, them I'm sorry - we need somebody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:24 AM

20. She HAS earned it! Who has done more????

 

there is no other female MORE qualified than Hillary Rodham Clinton....and now the people want a WOMAN! And she has just the brass ovaries to do it!


You've seen what they have done to Barack Obama....what do you think the first female President will be facing? You better get a woman who has proven she can take it....SHE has!

I might add...whatever you think....President Barack Obama has faced his worst critics with class and dignity....even though they've offered him no respect at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:44 AM

33. I can think of a Few.

 

Just because She Doesn't have a Penis doesn't make her More Qualified. Than Say, Allen Grayson, Al Frankin, Or Bernie Sanders, Who have all done more for the working person that your favorite Clinton. Oh, and By the Way if that's you single qualification for POTUS then Elizabeth Warren, come to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:58 PM

48. NOT MORE qualified than Hillary Rodham Clinton....sorry

 

and I didn't mention penis's......I said Americans WANT to put a woman in the Presidency now...and the one female candidate that has ALREADY taken everything they've got to dish out against her...and is STILL standing...she has brass ovaries! I have them too...,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:31 PM

42. No she hasn't earned it...

...you're putting the cart before the horse on this. I go back to my original point - that there was a similar "air of inevitability" around Hillary in 2008, when she was the presumptive nominee, prior to the rise of a certain Senator from Illinois. If this "air of inevitability" was based on reality - that is, the sentiment of the vast majority of Democrats - then Hillary would have cleaned up that Super Tuesday, and Obama would likely still be a Senator from Illinois. She and her people got complacent, and it cost her.

My beefs with Hillary have nothing to do with her husband. They are with her receiving $400,000 in speaking fees from the banking industry, where she tells them to not worry, and that any demonizing of them was counterproductive. I also find her to be too "blue dog", as far as fiscal policy is concerned. Vote for her, and on the banking and fiscal fronts it will likely be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." She's simply too cozy with Big Money for me to have any real enthusiasm for her candidacy - check out what Krystal Ball on MSNBC said about her not too long ago.

Look, IF (underline, IF) Clinton earns the nomination (sorry, but she hasn't yet, and she's not entitled to it), then better her than anything the Repubs prop up. But I'll have to bring a gas mask to the voting booth in order to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:25 PM

56. They're not right wing talking points.

We're questioning a right wing democrat, the criticism is from the left.


Given her support for Iraq, her judgement is too poor to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:49 PM

62. She's not the Democratic candidate YET.

 

The OP serves as useful information in deciding whether Clinton should be that candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 08:47 PM

9. My, but the primary forum is going to be bloody.

This is a non-incumbent election. Everyone is entitled to take his chances.

Hillary Clinton is the first woman we have with a presidential qualifications resume. We will have others but right now she is it.

Moses led his people for forty years in the desert but wasn't allowed to see the promised land. Maybe Hillary won't see it either.

The Iraq vote is a load of hooey, little as I liked it at the time. Bad vote. Patsy vote. Supported the Iraq war? BULLSHIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 10:45 PM

11. Haven't they all? History repeats, indeed. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:30 AM

21. You outright say she is the only woman with the resume for the job....

 

then dismiss her in the next breath. That's very telling....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:57 AM

30. Who CARES if the pres candidate is a woman or a man? I mean, good grief. How about

Talking about just their qualifications?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:21 PM

54. I would say that Elizabeth Warren has a decent resume, at least as good

As the resume presented by the then Jr Senator From Illinois back in '08.

And at least she wouldn't be coming out with a statement just three months after her inauguration, that she doesn't understand our economy, as she is too wrapped up in understanding the wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 21, 2014, 09:49 AM

90. "At least as good.."

A woman always has to be twice as good or she doesn't get the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 08:53 PM

10. Gotta wonder.... seems to me she may have voted with W more than at least some Republicans....

I wish Bill could run again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:11 AM

26. I know, rt!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:55 AM

23. War hawk, Queen Blue Dog, DLC/Third Way acolyte, and friendly w/the shadowy RW religious Cult called

 

"The Family."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:05 AM

25. Is this the start of the fun season?

Oh boy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:39 AM

28. Yes

same old same old...until we demand accountability we will have hill,obama...the rich OWN every politician.

Now call me a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:12 AM

31. Hillary Clinton IS a go-along-to-get-along kind of person.

She'll go with the prevailing winds, and, frankly, I'm fine with that so long as the wind is blowing to the left, but expecting her to lead us to the left would be foolish.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:37 PM

43. Precisely...

...it's just like Bill back in the day.

The problem is that our politcal winds have been increasingly generated by the huge-ass money and infrastructure fans operated by the Banks and Corporate America. We, on the left, don't have their infrastructure, so while we may be able to generate a good breeze (or with a second-wind effort, a gale force wind), the right can call up a Category 5 hurricane almost at a whim.

Most politicians (and I include Billary in this) don't follow winds, as much as they take Deep Throat's advice:

Follow The Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 05:55 PM

36. Oh I can see the primary wars will be fun.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 04:12 PM

41. Yes.

 

I'm a big fan of Yes/No questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:18 PM

52. The Clinton's are at best, Center-Right

 

politicians.

See NAFTA, DOMA, Glass-Steagall repeal, welfare "reform", support for Iraq/Afghanistan invasions, silence on war crimes under Bush.

Do I go on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:22 PM

55. 25 percent of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (or said they would)

That tells me everything I need to know about Hillary supporters. She is a neocon, there is no question.


Never forget and never forgive the PUMA traitors.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062604162_pf.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:05 PM

66. I won't vote for her no matter what

I hate having this be a foregone conclusion 2 YEARS before the election.

I won't "get in line" and I won't vote for the lesser of evils.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:24 PM

75. What about woman's rights? What about the SC? Aren't they too important

not to do everything in your power to help us win? It's also not her fault that the media kept saying she was inevitable or a foregone conclusion 2 years before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:32 PM

76. +1

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if she was the only candidate. No. Just no. And that pretty much goes for anyone else who voted to authorize the war of aggression against Iraq. None of them are fit to remain in office, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Fri Feb 21, 2014, 02:37 PM

91. yes

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 05:40 AM

92. Unless she and Bill have changed they are both blue dogs.

Remember who started the DLC.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 06:58 PM

93. The word you're looking for is 'neoliberal.'

And yes, she as well as Obama, are neoliberals, and every Democratic president going back to Jimmy Carter. In the U.K., Margaret Thatcher was a neoliberal. Neoconservatives are a different breed who started out left, then tacked hard right, particularly on militarist policies. The former originated during the Vietnam War years, while the latter came about in the U.S. in reaction to the economic decline and growing distrust of politics in the wake of Watergate (and other crises).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 01:02 PM

95. Hawk regular to hardline. Heavy neolib economics. Moderate socially..

Free trader.

Don't know where she is on the security state but the other positions indicate favor because some associations are indicative.

Whatever all that comes together to be but a rose is a rose by whatever name. As is a thistle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread