Skip to main content

View Diary: 2016 can be Hillary's (641 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The words "progressive" and "Clinton" should never (20+ / 0-)

    be used in the same sentence.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:55:45 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In your opinion (10+ / 0-)

      We have a long way to go as a nation. Hillary would certainly be more progressive than Obama, the less worse choice in the last election. She would be less progressive than I am in military and foreign policy matters, but NOT DOMESTIC.

      Here we go again with the Hillary Hater/Obamabots about to jump right out of the woodwork...

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:01:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't she come (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          randomfacts, Happy Days, vcmvo2

          out with a mortgage assistance program during the campaign?  I thought she was beginning to see the light regarding economic issues.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:09:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, (5+ / 0-)

            she was more ambitious on the mortgage front and had a bigger health care plan, which eventually became Obama's. She ran to the left of him on economics, but foreign policy was where most of the attention was directed prior to September 2008.

            "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

            by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:46:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Her health plan became Obama's? (0+ / 0-)

              I wish.

              We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

              by denise b on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:24:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, they were almost identical (0+ / 0-)

                although neither could be said to have "borrowed" from the other. Hillary's endorsed the controversial mandate which eventually become part of it. That was the only significant difference. There was little policy difference between the two on this issue.

                But so what? 2016 is light years away in political terms. Anything could happen with the Republicans.

                Jon Husted is a dick.

                by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:12:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Remember,... (0+ / 0-)

                  Bill started out a liberal too.  Then when he got his shellacking in 1994, he triangulated to conservadem, and seemed quite happy doing it.

                  The Clintons love POWER first.  They loved being president in a way that Obama, and especially Bush didn't seem to.  One of the things that infuriated the Right was that the Clinton's co-opted all of their good ideas (NAFTA, Welfare Reform, "the era of big government is over"), and raised money from all of their donors.  The first thing the Clinton's would do if they were back in the White House is consolidate power and start cashing in again.  Perhaps worst of all, the sleeze would be back - the same "sleeze" that dripped on Al Gore, and ultimately kept him out of the White House.

                  Obama doesn't always stand up for what he believes, but the Clintons don't believe in anything except themselves.  That was the objective history of their poll-driven, triangulated presidency of survival.  Why should we believe they have changed?  Liberalism is hard.  It requires you to row upstream against big money, and fight against your own self interest (as a wealthy powerful person) for the common good.  That takes a lot of strength, courage, energy and motivation.  The Clintons would have to dis the very people they tried so hard to win approval from.  People (almost all people) tend to get more conservative as they get older, not more liberal.  People didn't call Bill Clinton "the most successful Republican president ever" for no reason.

        •  Based on my opinion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hester

          Based on my observations of recent history. Just because I didn't convince you of my opinion doesn't mean it isn't valid. I'm not writing you a 100,000 word essay that wouldn't change your mind. I guess you're just a more 'pure' progressive than I am. Good for you.

          As I wrote below: Who, then? Who can win? Who would be better? Give me your opinion, if you like.

          "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

          by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there's lots of folks who can win. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wu ming, Quicklund, JVolvo, Laconic Lib

            Can you share one of those observations which provides that certainty?

            •  More progressive on tax policy (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ffour, Happy Days, JamieG from Md

              Hillary has a history we can look at and point to--as the prime adviser to her husband. His record is, for all practical purposes, HER record--or as close a signpost as a candidate can have WITHOUT the actual experience.

              Bill Clinton signed legislation he pushed hard, legislation that raised taxes on everyone in his first year as President. Prosperity ensued. An extreme generalization...but an undeniable fact, one that almost every progressive economist and blogger has been endorsing for four years.

              Obama CUT taxes in 2010, for no good reason whatsoever. None. The Bush Tax Cuts became the OBAMA TAX CUTS.

              Bill had his faults, but the prosperity the nation enjoyed on his watch was shared by EVERYONE, not just the bankers. I hear she listens to him from time to time, when he's not hiding from her.

              Your turn. Who else but Hillary?

              "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

              by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:24:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wait. That doesn't work. (9+ / 0-)

                You can't give credit to Hillary for her husband's few progressive accomplishments and not also saddle her with Nafta, DOMA, "welfare reform," and the like.  

                Frankly, I'd rather just evaluate her on her own merits.

              •  Can we put on our reality based hats since we're (10+ / 0-)

                still far from the election?

                Bill was fortunate to govern during the dot.com boom.  While his policies were certainly better than Paul Ryan's and he didn't invade any countries just for fun, much of the prosperity was based on bubble economics.

                •  What else do we have to go on? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JamieG from Md

                  Bill Clinton did not govern in a vacuum separate from his wife and her input. She did not serve as First Lady without a first-hand knowledge of policy and political maneuvering. Anyone who denies this is...just not based in reality.

                  She had more of a Presidential record to judge than Obama ever had...but if you don't agree, then I guess that means electing Hillary is like electing Laura Bush.

                  "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                  by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:45:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sounds like a repub talking point (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  viral, JamieG from Md, Quicklund

                  My right wing colleagues always say that Clinton's economic boom was based on the dot.com bubble.

                  The dot.coms and Y2K remediation certainly caused a bubble in the stock market, but I have yet to see any evidence that the "bubbly" part of internet growth was the key driver of jobs or economic activity.  

                  Prosperity was deep and widespread.  (And a lot of the internet's impact from the '90's was real and lasting, not part of the bubble.)

                  Had it not been for the Iraq wars, the Bush tax cuts and the financial shenanigans related to housing, I think prosperity would have continued into the 2000's following a brief recession after the bubble burst.

                  Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

                  by Happy Days on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:06:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Presidents always get too much credit or blame (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Laconic Lib, vcmvo2

                    I think it's fair to say that anyone serving as President during the 1990s would have enjoyed the good economic groundwork created by the fall of the Iron Curtain. automation/computerization efficiencies, as well as the dot com stuff. That president turned out to be named Bill Clinton.

                    And no question but the Bush policies made things a whole lot worse than they had to be. The USA share of the overall global GDP dropped from 32% at the start of Bush 43's terms and stood at 24% at the end. The only similar loss of global economic stature in a similar amount of time occurred in the European nations paved flat by WW2.

                    Yayyyy Bush?

                    •  The reality is that Newt Gingrich (0+ / 0-)

                      deserves as much credit for the 1990's surpluses as the CLintons do.  And, no, the Clintons cannot be decoupled.  Their "marriage" of convenience was as close to a co-presidency as we've ever seen.

                      The dot.com bubble, combined with the 1993 tax increase, raised unbelievable revenue for the federal government.  Gingrich refused to let Clinton spend any of it on his base through new programs.  Clinton refused to let Gingrich refund any of it to his base through tax cuts.

                      So, the money sat there, reduced the deficit, and eventually produced surpluses.  Bush was elected on a platform of returning the surplus to the taxpayers.  Gore campaigned on using the surplus to pay down the national debt.

                      Sometimes divided government works...at least fiscally.

              •  I considered the extension of unemployment (0+ / 0-)

                benefits a very good reason to extend the Bush tax cuts in Dec 2010.  I suppose you disagree with that.

                •  That the two were ever tied together (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, Nada Lemming

                  and allowed to remain so is a perfect example of the political sleaziness that has come to characterize our system in its present routine daily dysfunctioning that completely turns off vast swaths of the American public.  To use that political manipulation mendaciously to beat another citizen with a cheesy guilt-trip is reprehensible, showin g no higher ethical standards than that of the average congresscritter.

                  Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

                  by ActivistGuy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:30:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Obama has cleaned up a lot of Clinton messes. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greenbell, sebastianguy99

                This is not a good argument for you to make. Obama had to clean up Bushes messes but he also spent a lot of his first two years fixing Bill's mess. Clinton deregulated lending institutions which helped lead to the mortgage collapse, passed media consolidation, did nothing significant on climate change, passed DADT and DOMA, sent our manufacturing sector overseas. More Clinton policies would be two steps backward and I want to go forward.

          •  Elizabeth Warren.... -nt- (4+ / 0-)

            "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

            by The Rational Hatter on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:35:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Senate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mconvente

              Let here do something meaningful in the senate first.

              •  The same could have been said about Obama in 08. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                I haven't seen any indication that Senator Warren is even considering a run.  I was merely answering DaddyO's question regarding who else I'd like to see.  

                In any event, I won't be donating or volunterring for Secretary Clinton in the primaries.  And a vote for Clinton in the general does not mean that I support her policies.  She's a fine person, a Democratic icon, and - imo - not the best candidate at this time.  

                "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

                by The Rational Hatter on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:18:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, no dice (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew

                  By the time Obama was in contention, he had two full years in the Senate plus a record as a state legislature. Maybe in two years, Elizabeth Warren may have some accomplishments worthy of considering her name— but she too will be verging on too old to run.

                  Jon Husted is a dick.

                  by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:14:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not sure why you think I was trying convince you (0+ / 0-)

                    But I'm not holding the majority opinion when it comes to Democratic leadership so I geuss I should expect random people at DKos attempting to explain why I'm wrong.  

                    BTW - did you just imply that State Senate experience was a reasonable qualifier for POTUS?

                    "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

                    by The Rational Hatter on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:38:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Elizabeth Warren is a Mass thing (0+ / 0-)

                    She would never translate to a presidential campaign.  It took her forever (and the help of a nice Obama tail wind) to dispatch Scott Brown in Mass.  And, Mass is a lot bluer than most of America.  

                    Obama beat McCain and Romney mostly because the American people liked him more.  Maybe a Dem doesn't need that in Mass or CA, but they need it in OH, FL, VA, and the other swing states.  The GOP would have to be even dumber than they are now to nominate someone the average American would less like to have a beer with than Elizabeth Warren.  

                    She can be a Senator for as many years as she chooses.  That is where she will have to do her work.

              •  Hillary never did anything meaningful during her (0+ / 0-)

                entire 8 years in the Senate, yet she ran for President. At least Obama had 3 big pieces of legislation that passed credited to him.

                President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

                by askew on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:48:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I was very anti-Hillary (5+ / 0-)

        during the 2008 election because of her campaign tactics and a feeling I had about her being very much a micro-manager.  I was also very pro-Obama but I believe Hillary has matured greatly and is now the logical choice to carry on.  I think a number of us have come to trust the Clintons much more than we did.  I think public service has humbled them and both are smart enough to have learned from mistakes.  

        "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

        by artmartin on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:43:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  People imagining that Hillary turned liberal. (10+ / 0-)

      It's bizarre. This thread is full of people who are convinced that after an entire lifetime of being center-right, Hillary suddenly turned liberal with no evidence whatsoever. The cult of personality around her is just bizarre.

      And I really find it amazing that Kos has gone from complaining about Obama not being progressive enough to praising a figure clearly further to the right with a long history of weakly capitulating to Republicans. What's that about?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site