Skip to main content

View Diary: A Big Difference Between Edwards and Clinton (One of Many) (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll drink to that! (38+ / 0-)

    I'll even sleep much better knowing we have someone in the White House that cares about the people of this nation more than the latest polling of the people of this nation.

    Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21

    by funluvn1 on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:51:26 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's amazing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevej, dskinner, phoenixdreamz

      that despite being a corporatist establishment Senator, Hillary still managed at least as a progressive voting record than the self funded, anti-establishment Edwards.  

      If the big, bad corporations and establishment were pushing Hillary to do big, bad things, one would be able to attack her record in the Senate directly.

      •  How closely have you examined her record and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bettync, waiting for hope, lenzy1000

        compared it to Edwards?

        I asking about you yourself, rather then some postings others may have made.

        •  I've looked at his record a bunch (3+ / 0-)

          I've been pointed to several aspects of his voting record by people here, I checked out some myself in 2004 and this year, and I've examined his platform as a candidate in 2004.  

          Regardless of how I, personally, came to know about Edwards's moderate voting record in the Senate, and his massive leftward drift since losing the 2004 election, that record certainly exists.  

          It's simply false that the corporate backed candidate will be less progressive than the self funded one, given the way Hillary and Edwards got to the Senate and what they did once there.

          If you want to believe Edwards has sincerely changed, that's great, but it has nothing to do with corporations donating to Hillary.  She's the same person with the same corporate backing and same liberal voting record and policy positions.  

          •  Not to me - how may corporations do you know of (6+ / 0-)

            that are Left or Progressive?

            If they are progressive it is only toward their own bottom line.

            Anyone who thinks that the majority of corporations are into making those at the top richer is naive at best.

            •  Hillary has always received money from (3+ / 0-)

              corporations, and Penn's been advising her since before she came into the Senate.  If they were having an effect on her, you would be able to point to her own actions in the Senate rather than pointing at Penn and the corporations.  

              Yelling "corporatist" is just a scare tactic to make people think Hillary will be a bad president, but if there were truth to those charges, people would be able to point to her being a bad Senator.

              Without getting into whether all corporations are bad, the corporations don't get to vote in the Senate, and they won't be able to sign laws in the oval office.  

              It's like saying Hillary will be a conservative president because she was a Goldwater girl--it's raising fears about what could happen while entirely ignoring all the data saying it won't happen.

              •  HRC represents a thoroughly blue state... (9+ / 0-)

                What do you expect her voting record to be?  Yes, I've read DL's vote by vote comparison between HRC and JRE.  While he raises valid points, he utterly ignores the difference between a senator from NY and one from NC.

                Back in Ark, HRC was on the board of one of the planet's most virulently anti-union companies.  I knew labor people who were not happy about that fact when WJC ran in '92.  In NY, she's become a virtual Sidney Hillman on labor issues.

                One can argue back and forth about the respective voting records of JRE and HRC on domestic issues.  One cannot, however, contest their visibly different foreign policy approaches.

                She claims that she was fooled by the WH on the IWR.  Then WTF was she doing voting for Kyl-Lieberman?   Didn't her parents teach her "fool me once" when she was a kid?  If the WH burned you when you trusted them on Iraq, WTF are you doing trusting them on Iran?

                Having O'Hanlon on board is also scary.  I made myself read that tripe he co-authored on the NYT op-ed page before giving up in disgust.  Why did she bring on a proud "the surge is working" advocate?

                I can respect those who choose Obama over Edwards.  I can't understand for the life of me those Obama supporters who prefer HRC over Edwards.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:45:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't get this Red State/Blue State defense (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dskinner, phoenixdreamz

                  First, Hillary was getting a lot of corporate money to run for Senator of New York.  Were the corporations stupid for giving her money, knowing she was going to vote liberally because she was in a blue state? Is there any reason the corporate money is going to have an effect now when it didn't then?

                  Second, doesn't this defense run completely counter to the idea that Edwards is a strong leader who never follows polls?  If he's voting moderately because he thinks the voters want him to, what's going to stop him from shifting positions based on public opinion shifts as president?  Nothing, apparently, if you listened to him defend his newfound support for universal health coverage in the last debate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site