Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren still firing back against Wall Street Democrats (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obviously. (12+ / 0-)

    Hillary will suck. Sorry if I'm not excited about the prospect.

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 09:57:53 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Hillary will suck" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sweatyb, Farugia

      this from the guy who just said we should take a break from the "rox/sux" wars.  The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

      •  Her economic policies will likely suck. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno, daeros, CenPhx

        You seem angry that I wrote that.

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 10:31:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As evidenced by what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeremimi

          Her time as Secretary of State? Or as a state Senator in NY? Or is it because of something her husband said that one time?

          This is exactly what I am talking about. You are attacking HRC based on a huge assumption about what her Presidency will be like. And the only evidence you have to support that assumption is (specious) guilt-by-association.

          •  Based on her historical association with the DLC; (11+ / 0-)

            ... her choice of campaign advisors the last time she ran; her husband's ties to the DLC and Third Way along with his long-held policy positions; and with the recent pronouncements of Bill using the old "reach-across-the-aisle" language.

            So, yeah, there's a little history there. This isn't out of the blue.

            To think that a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't populate key economic positions in her cabinet with New/Third Way Dems is wishful thinking, in my opinion.

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 10:55:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  exactly, guilt by association (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jeremimi

              and again, to think that Warren would populate her cabinet exclusively with people you approve is also wishful thinking. She, after all, is apparently close with Hillary. (And we all know who she hangs out with.)

              •  "Guilt by association?" (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ukit, expatjourno, mightymouse, daeros

                No, these are things she's done. If anything, it's "guilt by actions."

                "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:07:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you apparently don't understand what that means (0+ / 0-)

                  "the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty"

                  Based on her historical association with the DLC;her choice of campaign advisors the last time she ran; her husband's ties to the DLC and Third Way along with his long-held policy positions; and with the recent pronouncements of Bill using the old "reach-across-the-aisle" language.
                  I am pretty sure everything you cite is a case of you not liking the people she's associated with. That's guilt by association.
                  No, these are things she's done.
                  No, these are people she associates with.

                  Things she has done would be like, "She kicked a puppy and called it lazy." or "She said she wanted to gut social security so bad she could taste it."

                  •  She was a founding member of the DLC. (7+ / 0-)

                    Her last campaign was populated with DLC operatives.

                    Historically, she has always been a New/DLC/Third Way Democrat.

                    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                    by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:43:15 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  citation? (0+ / 0-)
                      The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale's landslide defeat to incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                      I suppose Hillary was secretly behind the whole thing.

                      •  Clinton was a chairman of the DLC (0+ / 0-)

                        and told them once, “I would have never become president if it wasn’t for you.”

                        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                        by greenbastard on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:37:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, please... (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        greenbastard, greenbell, daeros, CenPhx

                        Watch this video from 2005 at the :35 mark:

                        "I have been involved with the DLC for many years, and I am proud of the ideas... that have come from its policy shop."
                        And straight from the horse's mouth, here's an NPR interview with DLC president and co-founder Bruce Reed from July 26, 2005:
                        Alex Chadwick talks with Bruce Reed, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, about this week's meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist party organization. The group has appointed Hillary Clinton to define a party agenda for the upcoming 2006 and 2008 elections.

                        ALEX CHADWICK, host: Why Hillary Clinton to undertake this task for the moderate, centrist Democratic Leadership Council?

                        BRUCE REED (Slate; Co-founder, Democratic Leadership Council): Well, Senator Clinton has been an intellectual leader in the party for many years, and she's been involved with the DLC for a couple of decades now, so she was a natural choice to head up this effort to reach out to Democrats of all stripes and thinkers throughout the party to come up with a positive agenda for the country.

                        Pretend whatever you want. She was in on the ground floor of the DLC and was an active participant in, and supporter of, the organization.

                        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                        by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:46:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  pretend what? (0+ / 0-)

                          Or is it your contention that Hillary Clinton was secretly behind the formation of the DLC.

                          I know that 1985 was a long time ago, maybe you don't remember what the Democrats were like in the 80s.

                          Maybe this will refresh your memory. Or this.

                          I'm sure that was Hillary's fault too.

                          I understand that you don't like her. But it's all guilt-by-association stuff. It's not what she's said or done, it's who she knows. Because by knowing who she knows, you know what she secretly thinks!

                          That's fine. But if you think Warren doesn't hang out with similar (if not the same) people then you are very naive.

                          •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            daeros

                            Hillary has no historical association with the DLC. Or something.

                            As for your last sentence...

                            But if you think Warren doesn't hang out with similar (if not the same) people then you are very naive.
                            ...maybe.

                            With Hillary, it's 100% certain. With someone else (and not necessarily Warren), odds are less than that.

                            Of course, I also want to also thank you for your patronizing tone.

                            Do you spend a lot of time inside the Beltway?

                            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                            by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 01:17:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  "Guilt by association" does not mean... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                daeros

                ...what you think it means.

                And there is exactly nothing in her record to indicate that she would be more progressive than Bill.

              •  You do remeber that she ran for president in 2008. (0+ / 0-)

                I went to see her speak at the local high school.  She said a lot of good stuff but then she later backtracked on as much of the good stuff as she said that night.  Her associations with third way and the money she has accepted from insurance companies and drug companies cause me to look at her with mistrust.  I also do not like WJC (AKA Slick Willie) because of his policies such as adjusting the CPI, DOMA, Glass-Steagall repeal, NAFTA, etc... and I do not see any substantial difference between them.

                How much do we know about any candidate ever?  I would venture to say that we know more about HRC than any candidate (other than an incumbent) as we have ever had on either side of the party lines.

                Saying we do not know her well enough to criticize her is disingenuous.

                "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:32:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do remember that, that's my point! (0+ / 0-)

                  I am not saying we don't know her well enough to criticize her, at all. We know a lot about her. Which means that there's no excuse for all the substance-free insults and murky insinuations that pepper the comments section of every single Sen. Warren diary on this site.

                  HRC has been in the public eye for several decades. She has given numerous speeches, held high office and run for President. Surely we can find some bill she supported or even something she said to criticize her for.

                  I appreciate that your criticism contains actual stuff. She said something good and then she didn't stick to it. But again much of your criticism of Hillary Clinton is about her husband. Which I think is ridiculously unfair.

                  I don't know if we do know more about her than any other candidate, but we certainly know a lot about her. And out of all that stuff is the worst thing really that she was part of the organization that helped get Bill Clinton elected instead of George Bush Sr?

            •  You left out her seat on Walmart's board. n/t (4+ / 0-)

              Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

              by chuck utzman on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:33:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Good God, how much more evidence to you need (5+ / 0-)

            Consider the fact that Clinton's close ally Howard Wolfson was last seen working for Mike Bloomberg, arguing that De Blasio's "liberal" policies would ruin New York. Bloomberg also apparently wanted to recruit Hillary to be his successor as mayor.

            Upon stepping down as Secretary of State, did Clinton try to help elect liberal Democrats or work for any populist economic cause? No, she headed straight to Wall Street where she collected half a million in a week giving speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs. To the extent that she's campaigned to elect Democrats, it's been for Third Way types like Terry McAuliffe, who Clinton apparently is close to and agrees with on a policy level.

            At this point, the onus is on Clinton to prove she favors left-wing economic policies, not vice versa.

            Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99 percent of the population exist. —George Orwell

            by ukit on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:14:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  But you don't hate her ... that would be wrong! (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site