Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[broncofan]

Remember when Bill passed welfare reform? Hillary wants to take a hard look at it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...elfare-reform/

Like I said, just watch out. She is far right and not supportive of the poor and middle class. It only matters to her who gave how much money.

If you read the last three paragraphs when she says we need to take a look at it, I believe she means to re-examine it because certain parts of it are harmful (and have been). I could be wrong, it's awfully late here. But her husband signed it into law, although she offered support for it at the time, but the "we have to take a look at it" quote is an acknowledgement of its failings rather than an expression of desire to compound them.

[Stavros]

Something to consider regarding the Democratic Party. I find it ironic that the LGBT community is rallying around someone who is pro-DOMA and anti-gay marriage (8 years ago). Then again she knows that come election time she will need to shore up the LIberal bases in New York and California (pro-LGBT) while dumping the Red South where they are anti-LGBT.

I don't think her positions evolved so much as she realizes who to pander to for votes. Let's be honest, she lied about DOMA at the beginning of the campaign.

Here is some food for thought about how the parties are evolving.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...-the-1-percent

Honestly, she is so far right-wing that I have a hard time discerning between Hillary and Trump.

Then again, as a Libertarian, we see the world as follows.

Attachment 930392

This is an argument where, as other posts have indicated, context helps explain Hillary Clinton's positions which have indeed changed over the years. In 1999 for example, prior to announcing her intention to run for the Senate in New York, Clinton declared "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel" which was not the official position of the US government or indeed her own view prior to the decision to enter politics as an individual. It is still controversial because the official view of the US Govt is that those parts of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1967 remain illegally occupied, which is why Jerusalem is not officially recognised as the capital of Israel and why the US has not moved its embassy there. The link with the quote is here-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...israel-problem

The issues here are complex, of course, but at the level of policy, should a politician always stick to one policy position and never change it? Pragmatism in politics suggests that change may be necessary as well as desirable and a clear difference between 'then and now' for the Clintons on the issues of same-sex marriage is the way in which attitudes in the US have changed since the 1990s when it was considered national news that Ellen DeGeneres was going to 'come out' on her tv show, with Bill Clinton offering the hallowed imprimatur of Presidential endorsement or support. These days, most people don't care if a person is 'gay' or 'straight' assuming those two words are still valid, not even in sport though I might be wrong on that as I don't follow it in the US -we do not have openly gay footballers in the UK. To outsiders, the timidity of the US in public over issues which are common knowledge in private is one of the curiosities of American life. The relentless need to elevate marriage and the family to the status of holiness sits uneasily with the reality that so many marriages fail and so many partners ignore their holy or legal vows to lead lives of relentless infidelity.

Another way to view the Clinton Presidency in its context is to compare it with the UK Labour Party which lost four elections between 1979 and 1997 just as the Democrats lost every Presidential election between 1980 and 1992, and only won under Tony Blair when it ditched its socialist constitution (Clause 4 of it to be precise), and to old Labour hands sold its soul to the devil of global capitalism for one reason only: to win an election. I think we can see that as in the US the 'New Deal' consensus that lasted from the 1930s to 1980 is similar to the Keynesian Consensus which in the UK lasted from 1945 to 1979, the point being that Thatcher and Reagan tore up the old way of using (Federal) Government to solve economic problems by emphasising the importance of markets (even if the reality today is that the largest employer in the US is either Federal or State govt and millions more rely on welfare).
If you wanted to win elections, you had to accept the new framework, which is what Clinton and Blair did, and in doing so also registered the fact that the erosion of heavy industry in the US and the UK depleted the Working Class/Blue Collar vote that had formed the basis of electoral support, and that the Middle Class had become the central plank of their electoral support -and many of them were working for Federal or State government and agencies. On this basis, the Clintons played the politics of the time in accordance with what they thought would work -and if that looks like a timid support for 'digital queers' and identity politics that is as far as they could go at the time without alienating their new base of support. To slate Mrs Clinton for being a fair weather politician also assumes she has a degree of integrity most politicians either do not have, or which in having relegates them to the margins, just as Sanders has been just as marginal a politician for most of his career as some Confederate flag-waving Southern politician still trying to deal with the abolition of slavery.

From where I am, if the choice is between Clinton and Trump or indeed, any other Republican, I would at least vote for Clinton however grudgingly, because I think the next President is in for one term during which not a lot on the economy will change, and that given the fact that neither Party -and certainly none of the candidates- has any long-term policy platform to create jobs and grow the economy, the USA has four years in which to think deeply about the next 50 years and to find someone with the vision to articulate the concerns of the generations they want to vote for them.

This is separate from a discussion of the Libertarian alternative, which is not what this thread is about.

[broncofan]

I don't really see how there's any alternative to Hillary Clinton, which is not a great endorsement but I have no reluctance to vote for her given the alternatives. It is not a bad thing to be pragmatic. The sea shift on gay marriage in this country happened quickly and in the 90's the Republicans were determined to pass through a welfare reform act that would have been much more damaging to people who needed assistance. Should she not consider the political alternatives? Why not move to the center rather than lose elections and deal with a much worse outcome? You cannot allow your party to become irrelevant by holding fast to unpopular views.

Bernie Sanders' commitment to policies he cannot implement does not just make him an idealist, it makes him irresponsible. It's very easy to list problems and very tough to craft solutions. And Trump cannot be a serious alternative either. He is not literate when it comes to policies (he thinks all of our health care problems can be solved by repealing the McCarran Act), he is prone to reckless pronouncements, and wants to do things that would damage this country for a generation. Building a wall? Legalizing torture? Carpet bombing countries that harbor terrorists? Excluding all Muslims from our country? There is nothing about a Hillary presidency that is nearly as apocalyptic. So what if she's an opportunist....whatever policies she comes up with will at least be within the realm of reasonable. If the next president does not have great vision, at least let them be cautious.

[broncofan]

This is separate from a discussion of the Libertarian alternative, which is not what this thread is about.

True. But in fairness the purpose of the thread was that Hillary had not been gracious to Barack when he won the primaries in 2008. It now is an all purpose thread about Hillary in 2016 I guess, which broadens it a little though maybe not to, what is the best system of gov for the U.S. (hint: not libertarianism).

[fred41]

Probably not exactly the appropriate thread for this, but this is where the conversation of the moment is taking place, so who really gives a fuck? Especially when there's only a handful of people participating, with someone new occasionally walking in and providing some new blood. Kind of like a big living room in the suburbs with the front door open...or a neighborhood dive bar with a friendly home crowd that's inviting enough to accommodate a wayward wanderer, who may opt to become a regular.

Usual disclaimer: Just latched on to a new brand of coffee: "Kicking Horse" ...roasted in Canada, our wonderful neighbor to the North ( which I'll have the extreme pleasure of visiting again in August for the Heavy Montreal Festival ) and I just drank a half caraf.

This is an interesting and seemingly unconventional time in American Politics. It's fucking weird. Why?
I think an enormous part of it has been mentioned by Stavros...the economy...specifically jobs.
Especially blue collar type jobs, because that is what seems to be fueling the Trump machine. None of the nominees are saying what I believe the reality to be: There aren't going to be any jobs for an enormous section of you. Yeah, sure...Trump promises to bring all that back, but I think he really knows that would be almost impossible...and I think so do many of his supporters, it's just that they simply don't care anymore.They know the asteroid is slowly coming for them so they're gonna party like its 1999. They're saying - "Let's call in a Berserker!!!"
They're not really voting Republican or Democrat...because those parties (or the cartoon versions of them)can't really help them. Democrats' raising of the minimum wage or enhancing social programs doesn't ever really help them. It's just another way of saying "Welcome to Mickey Dees! It ain't much, but we got you more money...or you can try to live on gov't life support until the asteroid hits. Just go to whatever version of a drugstore you use can help make the wait bearable. Sure, there are occasionally some jobs we can get you, but our party's environmental wing will never make that possible...and it really doesn't matter because unless you belong to a union, we don't need your vote anyway. "
...and Republican promises of less tax and trickle down and religion never really helps them either because they are simply empty promises without an actual industry that can be created. Much of wealth nowadays seems to be a shifting around of papers...and the only industries that can trickle down, only trickle down to technicians.The blue collar end happens in another country...but hey, we'll blind you with religion, so you can hate everyone and meet your angry god at the great reckoning..
...and the extreme wings of the parties are both filled with hate...and continue to add propellant.

So a true Moderate will either pick and choose which candidate is less repulsive...or sit it out.

Because I think Stavros might be right in another way: This is only going to be for one term

[fred41]

...and I think many voters have become tired of the over the top pandering for votes. It's always existed, but seems more extreme as time goes on. Hillary (looking up I realize this is supposed to be a Hillary thread) has to consistently shift depending on which crowd she's facing, which has always been the case for a politician - especially during a primary.
But even when she (or her husband) gives a perfectly common sense answer, she'll ruin it by reversing herself simply because of the perception that it may insult a thin skinned base of extreme voters.
Or she'll co-opt a platform she's never really fully endorsed.

Trump is wildly, and often ridiculously, pandering to everyone who will support him...changing tunes at the drop of a hat....often in the same night...But I think at this point, all his supporters are pretty much in on the same joke anyway. It doesn't really matter what he says, because as i've stated previously - they don't give a damn....they want to blow the whole thing up. Bring on the berserker...the reality star...the guy everyone in the world's genteel society everyone hates (which makes him even more attractive to his base).

again...strange election. It would be okay if it helped improve things in the future...but I have strong doubts on that happening.

[buttslinger]

Near the end of the Revolutionary War, right before the King called it quits, Washington's Generals were really pissed that their men hadn't been paid and that the USA was BROKE. And they all met up in New York and were going to discuss calling it quits themselves. Washington had to get them to wait a couple days and when he showed up, many of the Generals didn't want him there. He said he wanted to say a few things, and took a paper from his pocket.
"Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
Many of the Generals didn't even know he had glasses, and at that moment, everyone broke down, and the rest is History.

Lincoln read two books over and over as a child: The Bible and The Compleate Works of William Shakespeare.

FDR was a bit of a paradox, the job of President literally killed him and is the reason we only have two term Presidents now.
Saddam Hussein laughed that it took him eight years to figure out which way was up, when dealing with absolutely everything at once.
It takes WISDOM.

You don't want the smartest guy in the room to be in charge, he will leave the room with everyone's cash in his wallet (Trump)

The only reason Hillary voted for the Iraq War was because everyone knew it was going to happen no matter what she did, and any fool figured that even Bush couldn't fuck up a sure thing. So if she voted against it she would never be President. Bernie voted against the Iraq War. And he will never be President. It was WISE to vote for the War at that time under those circumstances, because when youre in charge you have to pick your victories as well as pick your defeats.
Hillary is a cold fish bitch, I won't be voting for Hillary in the Fall, I'll be voting for [Hillary-Bill-Wassermann-Democratic Machine] Clinton.
I'm looking forward to her destroying those Republican pricks AND filling the pockets of Republican voters with CASH.
Nothing is more important and crucial to the future of the United States than to have another Clinton Presidency that takes the National Debt Number from twenty zeroes to zero. (massive applause)


image sharing

[fred41]

Nothing is more important and crucial to the future of the United States than to have another Clinton Presidency that takes the National Debt Number from twenty zeroes to zero. (massive applause)

I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're not, then you're a fool for believing that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

[buttslinger]

I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're not, then you're a fool for believing that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

My being a fool has nothing to do with it. And I'm absolutely dead serious. Obama has been setting it up for 8 years. I'm guaranteeing it.

[broncofan]

Democrats' raising of the minimum wage or enhancing social programs doesn't ever really help them. It's just another way of saying "Welcome to Mickey Dees! It ain't much, but we got you more money...or you can try to live on gov't life support until the asteroid hits.

Small anecdote: A friend of mine has been on disability for about ten years. His physical condition finally improved so that he can work. He lives in California where the minimum wage passed. He has a high school degree and very little work experience. We started calculating what he can buy on $15 an hour.....he was initially very excited until he started calculation all of his expenses and realized he just wasn't under water anymore. These are not great times and a living wage is not elevating people to the middle class but it's a small mercy.