Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Hate to break it to you buddy, but both dems and repubs who are running for president have their pockets lined with big money donors who are expecting payback. This is what our political system is and the fact we are fighting back and forth between left and right is pretty shortsighted. Everyone does it and everyone who will ever run for office in this country will be beholden the almighty dollar.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Of course they will. I'm not sure you'll see conservatives crying about though. how many times has the left parroted "Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers!" and #####ed about "DARK" money? Heck, we get a few of you guys doing it 10 times a day.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
1. She was famous before she ever got engaged to Bill. She was the feature of an article in Time Magazine 5 years before she married Bill. Given her resume and achievements prior to becoming the First Lady of Arkansas, there is every reason to believe she would be just as prominent in her own right.
2. I don't find her to be more hypocritical than most politicians, and in many ways, far less.
3. She has received campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs; so have many candidates, both on the left and the right. Goldman Sachs is interested in free trade and maintaining less restrictions on the stock market, but also in international economic agreements. What is wrong with any of that? (Sorry, but I get a little sick of this populist bull####.)
4. Put aside the trivia: on what important issues, affecting Americans, has she lied about?
We will gladly give up all of Soros money for campaign finance reform. We are not afraid to see it happen, unlike the Koch brothers funded GOP who never talk about campaign finance reform because they don't want to play on a even playing field.Oh, right. So much for principles.Sure, you can't reform campaign finance unless you win the election and you can't win the election unless you raise the same amount of money as the other side (Koch brothers alone will spend a billion of their own money this election cycle).Accepting money from foreign donors and hypocritically taking in billions of dollars while running on finance reform is Okay with you? Isn't this what you guys ##### about time after time?So she should unilaterally disarm before the election? That makes sense
And you know who spends just as much money as the Koch Bros? That's right George Soros. #11 on the list - right behind #10 Koch Bros.
And let's not forget that the top political donors (organizations) are almost all unions and they almost go exclusively to Democrats.
So you have to forgive us if when we laugh at you and call you on yourabout campaign finance reform and dark money.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Oh, please.We will gladly give up all of Soros money for campaign finance reform. We are not afraid to see it happen, unlike the Koch brothers funded GOP who never talk about campaign finance reform because they don't want to play on a even playing field.Oh, right. So much for principles.Sure, you can't reform campaign finance unless you win the election and you can't win the election unless you raise the same amount of money as the other side (Koch brothers alone will spend a billion of their own money this election cycle).Accepting money from foreign donors and hypocritically taking in billions of dollars while running on finance reform is Okay with you? Isn't this what you guys ##### about time after time?So she should unilaterally disarm before the election? That makes sense
And you know who spends just as much money as the Koch Bros? That's right George Soros. #11 on the list - right behind #10 Koch Bros.
And let's not forget that the top political donors (organizations) are almost all unions and they almost go exclusively to Democrats.
So you have to forgive us if when we laugh at you and call you on your
How is it that all of the top donors are Democrats and/or Unions but it's the GOP that doesn't want to play on a level field? Your math doesn't add up.
Last edited by a moderator:
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
you are correct. It's not 50/50, it never is. conservatives raise more dark money through super PACs.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Well, I guess you had to make something up since it's been proven donors on the left "donate" FAR more than donors on the right.
We are willing to give that up. Can you link to any of the major GOP candidates calling for campaign finance reform? None of them are pushing for that, are they?Oh, please.We will gladly give up all of Soros money for campaign finance reform. We are not afraid to see it happen, unlike the Koch brothers funded GOP who never talk about campaign finance reform because they don't want to play on a even playing field.Oh, right. So much for principles.Sure, you can't reform campaign finance unless you win the election and you can't win the election unless you raise the same amount of money as the other side (Koch brothers alone will spend a billion of their own money this election cycle).Accepting money from foreign donors and hypocritically taking in billions of dollars while running on finance reform is Okay with you? Isn't this what you guys ##### about time after time?So she should unilaterally disarm before the election? That makes sense
And you know who spends just as much money as the Koch Bros? That's right George Soros. #11 on the list - right behind #10 Koch Bros.
And let's not forget that the top political donors (organizations) are almost all unions and they almost go exclusively to Democrats.
So you have to forgive us if when we laugh at you and call you on your
How is it that all of the top donors are Democrats and/or Unions but it's the GOP that doesn't want to play on a level field? Your math doesn't add up.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Who cares? Really? Your side is benefiting far more than anyone on the right.We are willing to give that up. Can you link to any of the major GOP candidates calling for campaign finance reform? None of them are pushing for that, are they?Oh, please.We will gladly give up all of Soros money for campaign finance reform. We are not afraid to see it happen, unlike the Koch brothers funded GOP who never talk about campaign finance reform because they don't want to play on a even playing field.Oh, right. So much for principles.Sure, you can't reform campaign finance unless you win the election and you can't win the election unless you raise the same amount of money as the other side (Koch brothers alone will spend a billion of their own money this election cycle).Accepting money from foreign donors and hypocritically taking in billions of dollars while running on finance reform is Okay with you? Isn't this what you guys ##### about time after time?So she should unilaterally disarm before the election? That makes sense
And you know who spends just as much money as the Koch Bros? That's right George Soros. #11 on the list - right behind #10 Koch Bros.
And let's not forget that the top political donors (organizations) are almost all unions and they almost go exclusively to Democrats.
So you have to forgive us if when we laugh at you and call you on your
How is it that all of the top donors are Democrats and/or Unions but it's the GOP that doesn't want to play on a level field? Your math doesn't add up.
And we also know that the cute buzzphrase "campaign finance reform" your side bandies about all the time really means "campaign finance reform for everyone else but us". It's nothing more than a populist phrase to help your team get elected - they're not really serious about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
And pretty much failed at that too since he's been shagging younger, more qualified tail for god knows how long.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
WSJ continuing to report the really important news about the Hillary campaign. 
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-flies-first-class-back-to-washington/
Hillary Clinton Flies First Class Back to Washington
With her first campaign trip drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton traded the Scooby road-trip van for a first-class airplane seat to make the trip back to Washington.
The Democratic presidential candidate flew from Bostons Logan Airport to Ronald Reagan National Airport on Tuesday night, sitting in row one of the U.S. Airways first-class section.
The luxury ride was a different one that Mrs. Clinton used to start her campaign. After announcing her run for president April 12, she left for Iowa from New York in a van nicknamed Scooby, after the childrens cartoon show Scooby Doo. She then made stops in New Hampshire.
On the flight back to D.C., Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Mrs. Clinton, sat next to her. Several Secret Service agents were on the plane with Mrs. Clinton some were sitting in coach and quickly, but politely, pushed past passengers to exit the plane and join Mrs. Clinton after the plane landed.
Mrs. Clinton spent the past few days campaigning in New Hampshire as part of her listening tour, where she is meeting with voters and hearing their concerns. Instead of large rallies, Mrs. Clinton has been meeting with voters in small groups, with the goal of appearing more accessible to everyday Americans.
After landing, Mrs. Clinton walked through the airport with a small police escort in addition to her Secret Service detail. She pulled her own luggage and stopped and smiled for a few selfies with supporters who asked. She also complimented a womans briefcase. When asked about her flight and schedule, she smiled and said that she didnt make the arrangements.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-flies-first-class-back-to-washington/
Hillary Clinton Flies First Class Back to Washington
With her first campaign trip drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton traded the Scooby road-trip van for a first-class airplane seat to make the trip back to Washington.
The Democratic presidential candidate flew from Bostons Logan Airport to Ronald Reagan National Airport on Tuesday night, sitting in row one of the U.S. Airways first-class section.
The luxury ride was a different one that Mrs. Clinton used to start her campaign. After announcing her run for president April 12, she left for Iowa from New York in a van nicknamed Scooby, after the childrens cartoon show Scooby Doo. She then made stops in New Hampshire.
On the flight back to D.C., Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Mrs. Clinton, sat next to her. Several Secret Service agents were on the plane with Mrs. Clinton some were sitting in coach and quickly, but politely, pushed past passengers to exit the plane and join Mrs. Clinton after the plane landed.
Mrs. Clinton spent the past few days campaigning in New Hampshire as part of her listening tour, where she is meeting with voters and hearing their concerns. Instead of large rallies, Mrs. Clinton has been meeting with voters in small groups, with the goal of appearing more accessible to everyday Americans.
After landing, Mrs. Clinton walked through the airport with a small police escort in addition to her Secret Service detail. She pulled her own luggage and stopped and smiled for a few selfies with supporters who asked. She also complimented a womans briefcase. When asked about her flight and schedule, she smiled and said that she didnt make the arrangements.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
She's a horrible person. I hope this destroys her campaign.WSJ continuing to report the really important news about the Hillary campaign.
timschochet
Footballguy
Huma is a hottie. She looks like Kalinda on The Good Wife.
Who knows what Hillary and Huma are up to in the privacy of their first class seats?
Who knows what Hillary and Huma are up to in the privacy of their first class seats?
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Huma looks like Jeff Goldblum in drag.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
PLENTY of serious articles have laid out the trail of lies, corruption, paying for favors and general ineptitude of Hillary that you've gaffed off so this seems beneath you.WSJ continuing to report the really important news about the Hillary campaign.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-flies-first-class-back-to-washington/
Hillary Clinton Flies First Class Back to Washington
With her first campaign trip drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton traded the Scooby road-trip van for a first-class airplane seat to make the trip back to Washington.
The Democratic presidential candidate flew from Bostons Logan Airport to Ronald Reagan National Airport on Tuesday night, sitting in row one of the U.S. Airways first-class section.
The luxury ride was a different one that Mrs. Clinton used to start her campaign. After announcing her run for president April 12, she left for Iowa from New York in a van nicknamed Scooby, after the childrens cartoon show Scooby Doo. She then made stops in New Hampshire.
On the flight back to D.C., Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Mrs. Clinton, sat next to her. Several Secret Service agents were on the plane with Mrs. Clinton some were sitting in coach and quickly, but politely, pushed past passengers to exit the plane and join Mrs. Clinton after the plane landed.
Mrs. Clinton spent the past few days campaigning in New Hampshire as part of her listening tour, where she is meeting with voters and hearing their concerns. Instead of large rallies, Mrs. Clinton has been meeting with voters in small groups, with the goal of appearing more accessible to everyday Americans.
After landing, Mrs. Clinton walked through the airport with a small police escort in addition to her Secret Service detail. She pulled her own luggage and stopped and smiled for a few selfies with supporters who asked. She also complimented a womans briefcase. When asked about her flight and schedule, she smiled and said that she didnt make the arrangements.
I think it's pretty clear that nothing short of video footage of Hillary Clinton shooting someone dead wouldn't sway your zeal for her. Come to think of it...I doubt even that would sway you.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Tsk tsk, Max. A bit of an overreaction to such an important piece by the Wall Street Journal about Hillary flying on an airplane. And if her lunch stop at Chipotle was worth several pages of discussion in the Hillary Haters Thread, surely this forum also deserves all the details about her recent plane ride.PLENTY of serious articles have laid out the trail of lies, corruption, paying for favors and general ineptitude of Hillary that you've gaffed off so this seems beneath you.WSJ continuing to report the really important news about the Hillary campaign.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-flies-first-class-back-to-washington/
Hillary Clinton Flies First Class Back to Washington
I think it's pretty clear that nothing short of video footage of Hillary Clinton shooting someone dead wouldn't sway your zeal for her. Come to think of it...I doubt even that would sway you.
Who says conservatives have no sense of humor.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You know what's great about Huma? Tony Weiner will be in the White House. What could possibly go wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I like Bernie, he believes in the things he talks about. Hillary dropped this op-ed in the Des Moines register on the way out:
Thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
In all honesty, Hillary hasn't really given anyone anything to report on in terms of what she's done on the campaign trail has she? Reporters have been limited to select pools and generally don't get to ask questions, and the events are not in public.WSJ continuing to report the really important news about the Hillary campaign.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-flies-first-class-back-to-washington/
Hillary Clinton Flies First Class Back to Washington
With her first campaign trip drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton traded the Scooby road-trip van for a first-class airplane seat to make the trip back to Washington.
The Democratic presidential candidate flew from Bostons Logan Airport to Ronald Reagan National Airport on Tuesday night, sitting in row one of the U.S. Airways first-class section.
The luxury ride was a different one that Mrs. Clinton used to start her campaign. After announcing her run for president April 12, she left for Iowa from New York in a van nicknamed Scooby, after the childrens cartoon show Scooby Doo. She then made stops in New Hampshire.
On the flight back to D.C., Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Mrs. Clinton, sat next to her. Several Secret Service agents were on the plane with Mrs. Clinton some were sitting in coach and quickly, but politely, pushed past passengers to exit the plane and join Mrs. Clinton after the plane landed.
Mrs. Clinton spent the past few days campaigning in New Hampshire as part of her listening tour, where she is meeting with voters and hearing their concerns. Instead of large rallies, Mrs. Clinton has been meeting with voters in small groups, with the goal of appearing more accessible to everyday Americans.
After landing, Mrs. Clinton walked through the airport with a small police escort in addition to her Secret Service detail. She pulled her own luggage and stopped and smiled for a few selfies with supporters who asked. She also complimented a womans briefcase. When asked about her flight and schedule, she smiled and said that she didnt make the arrangements.
Can you blame WSJ for having zero to report on what she is doing or saying?
National Journal actually summarized the full sum of the questions that have been asked of her and her answers so far:
And that is it.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Anyone know where Hillary stands on:
- Trans Pacific Partnership?
- Iran nuke treaty?
- Does she still believe we should build a fence along the border like she did in 2008?
Leviathan
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
"It is heartbreaking. The tragic death of another young African-American man. The injuries to police officers. The burning of peoples' homes and small businesses," Clinton said. "We have to restore order and security. But then we have to take a hard look as to what we need to do to reform our system."
timschochet
Footballguy
Clinton's second event was at the home of Arne and Milly Glimcher. Alan Patricof, a longtime Clinton supporter and venture capitalist, co-hosted the event that put the presidential candidate in front of about 75 people.
"She focused on education, on immigration, on income inequality, on fairness and several other issues," Patricof told CNN after the event.
Lori Ordover, a real estate developer in New York, said Clinton spent time talking about "really building up the middle class" and "helping families."
Dennis Cheng, Clinton's finance director, joined the former secretary of state at all three events.
One thing Clinton didn't mention at the event, according to attendees, was CEO and Wall Street pay, an issue she focused on while in Iowa earlier this month.
"There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker," Clinton said in Iowa. "And there's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days."
Jeffrey Squire, a lawyer who attended the second event, said, "No, she didn't talk about Wall Street pay, because there were a lot of really rich people there."
Patricof confirmed that CEO pay didn't come up, but added, "My experience is that most people on Wall Street are willing to transcend their own personal interests and they don't vote and don't support people based on one particular issue."
"I don't think she is anti-Wall Street any how," he said. "I think she is very realistic person who understands the issues and will behave in a rational way."
At the third event, Clinton said her campaign would focus on "inclusive prosperity," noting that many Americans are "feeling like the deck is stacked for those like us, let's be honest -- for people who have done well and continue to do well."
"I want the middle class to mean something again," Clinton said at the 150-person fundraiser hosted by Doug and Agatha Teitelbaum. "I want to be a president for people who dream again and feel like they can get where their ambition and hard work will take them."
"She focused on education, on immigration, on income inequality, on fairness and several other issues," Patricof told CNN after the event.
Lori Ordover, a real estate developer in New York, said Clinton spent time talking about "really building up the middle class" and "helping families."
Dennis Cheng, Clinton's finance director, joined the former secretary of state at all three events.
One thing Clinton didn't mention at the event, according to attendees, was CEO and Wall Street pay, an issue she focused on while in Iowa earlier this month.
"There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker," Clinton said in Iowa. "And there's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days."
Jeffrey Squire, a lawyer who attended the second event, said, "No, she didn't talk about Wall Street pay, because there were a lot of really rich people there."
Patricof confirmed that CEO pay didn't come up, but added, "My experience is that most people on Wall Street are willing to transcend their own personal interests and they don't vote and don't support people based on one particular issue."
"I don't think she is anti-Wall Street any how," he said. "I think she is very realistic person who understands the issues and will behave in a rational way."
At the third event, Clinton said her campaign would focus on "inclusive prosperity," noting that many Americans are "feeling like the deck is stacked for those like us, let's be honest -- for people who have done well and continue to do well."
"I want the middle class to mean something again," Clinton said at the 150-person fundraiser hosted by Doug and Agatha Teitelbaum. "I want to be a president for people who dream again and feel like they can get where their ambition and hard work will take them."
timschochet
Footballguy
“I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas:”
"We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday,
“We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s where it all starts.
“We need to fix the dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,”
“We need to protect our country from threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.”
"We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday,
“We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s where it all starts.
“We need to fix the dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,”
“We need to protect our country from threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.”
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-2016-primary/index.html
http://www.lakeplacidnews.com/page/content.detail/id/837742/Clinton-fundraisers-show-scope-of-family-network.html?isap=1&nav=5068
No time to talk to the press still though, well Baltimore can wait a couple days...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
In Los Angeles, a Clinton fundraising dinner will be held by Cheryl and Haim Saban, an entertainment mogul who created the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The billionaire couple
See now this is offensive in itself. It's not bad enough that this guy created the Power Rangers, but the fact that he made a BILLION DOLLARS out of that...
See now this is offensive in itself. It's not bad enough that this guy created the Power Rangers, but the fact that he made a BILLION DOLLARS out of that...
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/28/402778882/the-clinton-h-is-becoming-the-empire-state-building-of-campaign-logos
Panned When It First Came Out, The Clinton Logo Is Saying Something Now
Hillary Clinton's new logo has been much maligned. A simple, rightward-pointing "H" with a red arrow through it that looks like it could have been made with Microsoft Paint.
Red, the color of the other team. How could she? some Democrats wondered. It seemed so amateurish, some design experts lamented.
"I think the Hillary logo is really saying nothing," Scott Thomas told Politico. Thomas was design director for Obama's 2008 campaign and worked on the White House website's redesign.
Clinton's simple logo, though, is certainly saying something now. On Tuesday, the day of the Supreme Court oral arguments on gay marriage, her H on both Facebook and Twitter were changed to rainbow-colored.
And it's not the only example of how the campaign has tried to adapt the logo. For Iowa, the background is an open field with corn in the foreground. For New Hampshire, mountains.
It's kind of becoming the Empire State Building of presidential campaign logos changing colors to celebrate any variety of milestones and holidays, from pink for breast cancer awareness to red, white and blue for Memorial Day to "pastel fades" for Easter. (The Empire State Building has a whole calendar of scheduled colors.)
Among perhaps the smartest analyses of the logo was one from Sol Sender, who designed Obama's 2008 logo. He told the Huffington Post that the point of campaign logo design is to first address one of the candidate's biggest weaknesses. For Obama, because of his unusual name, the campaign knew it had to play up patriotism. For Clinton, it's the criticism that she represents the past.
"If you boil it down it's really a symbol of forward motion," Sender said of Clinton's logo. "On the Obama work we were really conscious from the start about where he was vulnerable we knew Obama critics said things like, 'He's not American.' So we thought going strong with a patriotic theme was quite important. Hence the red, white and blue colors in the Obama logo.
"In terms of vulnerabilities," he said, "Hillary always seems to get dragged into the past by her critics. Therefore, you might argue that a symbol like this, which is so aggressively pushing forward, could help counterbalance any negative energy that is directed at her past."
Panned When It First Came Out, The Clinton Logo Is Saying Something Now
Hillary Clinton's new logo has been much maligned. A simple, rightward-pointing "H" with a red arrow through it that looks like it could have been made with Microsoft Paint.
Red, the color of the other team. How could she? some Democrats wondered. It seemed so amateurish, some design experts lamented.
"I think the Hillary logo is really saying nothing," Scott Thomas told Politico. Thomas was design director for Obama's 2008 campaign and worked on the White House website's redesign.
Clinton's simple logo, though, is certainly saying something now. On Tuesday, the day of the Supreme Court oral arguments on gay marriage, her H on both Facebook and Twitter were changed to rainbow-colored.
And it's not the only example of how the campaign has tried to adapt the logo. For Iowa, the background is an open field with corn in the foreground. For New Hampshire, mountains.
It's kind of becoming the Empire State Building of presidential campaign logos changing colors to celebrate any variety of milestones and holidays, from pink for breast cancer awareness to red, white and blue for Memorial Day to "pastel fades" for Easter. (The Empire State Building has a whole calendar of scheduled colors.)
Among perhaps the smartest analyses of the logo was one from Sol Sender, who designed Obama's 2008 logo. He told the Huffington Post that the point of campaign logo design is to first address one of the candidate's biggest weaknesses. For Obama, because of his unusual name, the campaign knew it had to play up patriotism. For Clinton, it's the criticism that she represents the past.
"If you boil it down it's really a symbol of forward motion," Sender said of Clinton's logo. "On the Obama work we were really conscious from the start about where he was vulnerable we knew Obama critics said things like, 'He's not American.' So we thought going strong with a patriotic theme was quite important. Hence the red, white and blue colors in the Obama logo.
"In terms of vulnerabilities," he said, "Hillary always seems to get dragged into the past by her critics. Therefore, you might argue that a symbol like this, which is so aggressively pushing forward, could help counterbalance any negative energy that is directed at her past."
Is this the getting unaccountable money out of politics or building the middle class portion of her agenda?
Nevermind…the Power Rangers are going to protect our country for threats on the horizon.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thank you so much. I am absolutely delighted to be back here at Columbia. I want to thank President Bollinger, Dean Janow, and everyone at the School of International and Public Affairs. It is a special treat to be here with and on behalf of a great leader of this city and our country, David Dinkins. He has made such an indelible impact on New York, and I had the great privilege of working with him as First Lady and then, of course, as a new senator. When I was just starting out as a senator, David’s door was always open. He and his wonderful wife Joyce were great friends and supporters and good sounding boards about ideas that we wanted to consider to enhance the quality of life and the opportunities for the people of this city. I was pleased to address the Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum in my first year as a senator, and I so appreciated then as I have in the years since David’s generosity with his time and most of all his wisdom. So 14 years later, I’m honored to have this chance, once again, to help celebrate the legacy of one of New York’s greatest public servants. I’m pleased too that you will have the opportunity after my remarks to hear from such a distinguished panel, to go into more detail about some of the issues that we face. I also know that Manhattan Borough President Gail Brewer is here, along with other local and community leaders. Because surely this is a time when our collective efforts to devise approaches to the problems that still afflict us is more important than ever. Indeed, it is a time for wisdom. For yet again, the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short. Yet again, the streets of an American city are marred by violence. By shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force. Yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare and its bonds of trust and respect frayed.
Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul. And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable. Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford. Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city. And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody. Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families. We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America. There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts. There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death. There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job. There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities. We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again. We should begin by heeding the pleas of Freddie Gray’s family for peace and unity, echoing the families of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and others in the past years. Those who are instigating further violence in Baltimore are disrespecting the Gray family and the entire community. They are compounding the tragedy of Freddie Gray’s death and setting back the cause of justice. So the violence has to stop.
But more broadly, let’s remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country. We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society. Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets. Between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically. This is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and everything we want to achieve together. It truly is about how we treat each other and what we value. Making it possible for every American to reach his or her God-given potential—regardless of who you are, where you were born, or who you love. The inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what America can be and should be. I learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school—at one of those law schools that will remain nameless here at Columbia. One of my earliest jobs for the Children’s Defense Fund, which David had mentioned—I was so fortunate to work with Marian Wright Edelman as a young lawyer and then serving on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund—was studying the problem then of youth, teenagers, sometimes preteens, incarcerated in adult jails. Then, as director of the University of Arkansas School of Law’s legal aid clinic, I advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families. I saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable. I saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. I saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison. So, unfortunately, I know these are not new challenges by any means. In fact they have become even more complex and urgent over time. And today they demand fresh thinking and bold action from all of us. Today there seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for commonsense reforms in our criminal justice systems. Senators as disparate on the political spectrum as Cory Booker and Rand Paul and **** Durbin and Mike Lee are reaching across the aisle to find ways to work together. It is rare to see Democrats and Republicans agree on anything today. But we’re beginning to agreeing on this: We need to restore balance to our criminal justice system. Now of course it is not enough just to agree and give speeches about it—we actually have to work together to get the job done.
We need to deliver real reforms that can be felt on our streets, in our courthouses, and our jails and prisons, in communities too long neglected. Let me touch on two areas in particular where I believe we need to push for more progress. First, we need smart strategies to fight crime that help restore trust between law enforcement and our communities, especially communities of color. There’s a lot of good work to build on. Across the country, there are so many police officers out there every day inspiring trust and confidence, honorably doing their duty, putting themselves on the line to save lives. There are police departments already deploying creative and effective strategies, demonstrating how we can protect the public without resorting to unnecessary force. We need to learn from those examples, build on what works. We can start by making sure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets. President Obama’s task force on policing gives us a good place to start. Its recommendations offer a roadmap for reform, from training to technology, guided by more and better data. We should make sure every police department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between officers on patrol and suspects. That will improve transparency and accountability, it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented with cameras, but this is a commonsense step we should take. The President has provided the idea of matching funds to state and local governments investing in body cameras. We should go even further and make this the norm everywhere. And we should listen to law enforcement leaders who are calling for a renewed focus on working with communities to prevent crime, rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions. As your Senator from New York, I supported a greater emphasis on community policing, along with putting more officers on the street to get to know those communities. David Dinkins was an early pioneer of this policy. His leadership helped lay the foundation for dramatic drops in crime in the years that followed. And today smart policing in communities that builds relationships, partnerships, and trust makes more sense than ever. And it shouldn’t be limited just to officers on the beat. It’s an ethic that should extend throughout our criminal justice system. To prosecutors and parole officers. To judges and lawmakers. We all share a responsibility to help re-stitch the fabric of our neighborhoods and communities. We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice
system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children. Today I saw an article on the front page of USA Today that really struck me, written by a journalist who lives in Baltimore. And here’s what I read three times to make sure I was reading correctly: “At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market. But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy.” We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society. Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country. This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against. We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own. David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country. So I don’t want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today. The second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison. It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows. Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts. Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities. One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.
When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we’re talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers. They’re not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound. Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty. And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment. And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison. The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That’s the salary of a teacher or police officer. One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton. If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we’d save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues. It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe. I don’t know all the answers. That’s why I’m here—to ask all the smart people in Columbia and New York to start thinking this through with me. I know we should work together to pursue together to pursue alternative punishments for low-level offenders. They do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don’t want that to be a fast track to long-term criminal activity, we don’t want to create another “incarceration generation.” I’ve been encouraged to see changes that I supported as Senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law. And last year, the Sentencing Commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes. President Obama and former Attorney General Holder have led the way with important additional steps. And I am looking forward to our new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, carrying this work forward. There are other measures that I and so many others have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences are long overdue. We also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble to stay out of prison. I’ve seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment
of individuals and communities. And please, please, let us put mental health back at the top of our national agenda. You and I know that the promise of de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the creation of community-based treatment centers. Well, we got half of that equation—but not the other half. Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions. I have to tell you I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health. “What are we going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness?” “What are we going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons?” “What are we going to do when hospitals don’t really get reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients?” It’s not just a problem in our cities. There’s a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small-town and rural America as well. We have to do more and finally get serious about treatment. I’ll be talking about all of this in the months to come, offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities. I know in a time when we’re afflicted by short-termism, we’re not looking over the horizon for the investments that we need to make in our fellow citizens, in our children. So I’m well aware that progress will not be easy, despite the emerging bipartisan consensus for certain reforms. And that we will have to overcome deep divisions and try to begin to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust. But I am convinced, as the congenital optimist I must be to live my life, that we can rise to this challenge. We can heal our wounds. We can restore balance to our justice system and respect in our communities. And we can make sure that we take actions that are going to make a difference in the lives of those who for too long have been marginalized and forgotten. Let’s protect the rights of all our people. Let’s take on the broader inequities in our society. You can’t separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods. Despite all the progress we’ve made in this country lifting people up—and it has been extraordinary—too many of our fellow citizens are still left out. Twenty-five years ago, in his inaugural address as Mayor, David Dinkins warned of leaving “too many lost amidst the wealth and grandeur that surrounds us.” Today, his words and the emotion behind them ring truer than ever. You don’t have to look too far from this magnificent hall to find children still living in poverty or trapped in failing schools. Families who work hard but can’t afford the rising prices in their neighborhood. Mothers and fathers who fear for their sons’ safety when they go off to school—or just to go buy a pack of Skittles. These challenges are all woven together. And they all must be tackled together.
Our goal must truly be inclusive and lasting prosperity that’s measured by how many families get ahead and stay ahead… How many children climb out of poverty and stay out of prison… How many young people can go to college without breaking the bank… How many new immigrants can start small businesses … How many parents can get good jobs that allow them to balance the demands of work and family. That’s how we should measure prosperity. With all due respect, that is a far better measurement than the size of the bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings. Now even in the most painful times like those we are seeing in Baltimore … When parents fear for their children… When smoke fills the skies above our cities… When police officers are assaulted… Even then—especially then—let’s remember the aspirations and values that unite us all: That every person should have the opportunity to succeed. That no one is disposable. That every life matters. So yes, Mayor Dinkins. This is a time for wisdom. A time for honesty about race and justice in America. And, yes, a time for reform. David Dinkins is a leader we can look to. We know what he stood for. Let us take the challenge and example he presents and think about what we must do to make sure that this country we love—this city we live in—are both good and great. And please join me in saying a prayer for the family of Freddie Gray, and all the men whose names we know and those we don’t who have lost their lives unnecessarily and tragically. And in particular today, include in that prayer the people of Baltimore and our beloved country. Thank you all very much.
Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul. And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable. Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford. Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city. And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody. Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families. We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America. There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts. There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death. There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job. There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities. We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again. We should begin by heeding the pleas of Freddie Gray’s family for peace and unity, echoing the families of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and others in the past years. Those who are instigating further violence in Baltimore are disrespecting the Gray family and the entire community. They are compounding the tragedy of Freddie Gray’s death and setting back the cause of justice. So the violence has to stop.
But more broadly, let’s remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country. We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society. Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets. Between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically. This is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and everything we want to achieve together. It truly is about how we treat each other and what we value. Making it possible for every American to reach his or her God-given potential—regardless of who you are, where you were born, or who you love. The inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what America can be and should be. I learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school—at one of those law schools that will remain nameless here at Columbia. One of my earliest jobs for the Children’s Defense Fund, which David had mentioned—I was so fortunate to work with Marian Wright Edelman as a young lawyer and then serving on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund—was studying the problem then of youth, teenagers, sometimes preteens, incarcerated in adult jails. Then, as director of the University of Arkansas School of Law’s legal aid clinic, I advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families. I saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable. I saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. I saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison. So, unfortunately, I know these are not new challenges by any means. In fact they have become even more complex and urgent over time. And today they demand fresh thinking and bold action from all of us. Today there seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for commonsense reforms in our criminal justice systems. Senators as disparate on the political spectrum as Cory Booker and Rand Paul and **** Durbin and Mike Lee are reaching across the aisle to find ways to work together. It is rare to see Democrats and Republicans agree on anything today. But we’re beginning to agreeing on this: We need to restore balance to our criminal justice system. Now of course it is not enough just to agree and give speeches about it—we actually have to work together to get the job done.
We need to deliver real reforms that can be felt on our streets, in our courthouses, and our jails and prisons, in communities too long neglected. Let me touch on two areas in particular where I believe we need to push for more progress. First, we need smart strategies to fight crime that help restore trust between law enforcement and our communities, especially communities of color. There’s a lot of good work to build on. Across the country, there are so many police officers out there every day inspiring trust and confidence, honorably doing their duty, putting themselves on the line to save lives. There are police departments already deploying creative and effective strategies, demonstrating how we can protect the public without resorting to unnecessary force. We need to learn from those examples, build on what works. We can start by making sure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets. President Obama’s task force on policing gives us a good place to start. Its recommendations offer a roadmap for reform, from training to technology, guided by more and better data. We should make sure every police department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between officers on patrol and suspects. That will improve transparency and accountability, it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented with cameras, but this is a commonsense step we should take. The President has provided the idea of matching funds to state and local governments investing in body cameras. We should go even further and make this the norm everywhere. And we should listen to law enforcement leaders who are calling for a renewed focus on working with communities to prevent crime, rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions. As your Senator from New York, I supported a greater emphasis on community policing, along with putting more officers on the street to get to know those communities. David Dinkins was an early pioneer of this policy. His leadership helped lay the foundation for dramatic drops in crime in the years that followed. And today smart policing in communities that builds relationships, partnerships, and trust makes more sense than ever. And it shouldn’t be limited just to officers on the beat. It’s an ethic that should extend throughout our criminal justice system. To prosecutors and parole officers. To judges and lawmakers. We all share a responsibility to help re-stitch the fabric of our neighborhoods and communities. We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice
system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children. Today I saw an article on the front page of USA Today that really struck me, written by a journalist who lives in Baltimore. And here’s what I read three times to make sure I was reading correctly: “At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market. But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy.” We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society. Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country. This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against. We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own. David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country. So I don’t want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today. The second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison. It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows. Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts. Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities. One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.
When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we’re talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers. They’re not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound. Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty. And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment. And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison. The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That’s the salary of a teacher or police officer. One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton. If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we’d save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues. It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe. I don’t know all the answers. That’s why I’m here—to ask all the smart people in Columbia and New York to start thinking this through with me. I know we should work together to pursue together to pursue alternative punishments for low-level offenders. They do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don’t want that to be a fast track to long-term criminal activity, we don’t want to create another “incarceration generation.” I’ve been encouraged to see changes that I supported as Senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law. And last year, the Sentencing Commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes. President Obama and former Attorney General Holder have led the way with important additional steps. And I am looking forward to our new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, carrying this work forward. There are other measures that I and so many others have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences are long overdue. We also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble to stay out of prison. I’ve seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment
of individuals and communities. And please, please, let us put mental health back at the top of our national agenda. You and I know that the promise of de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the creation of community-based treatment centers. Well, we got half of that equation—but not the other half. Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions. I have to tell you I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health. “What are we going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness?” “What are we going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons?” “What are we going to do when hospitals don’t really get reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients?” It’s not just a problem in our cities. There’s a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small-town and rural America as well. We have to do more and finally get serious about treatment. I’ll be talking about all of this in the months to come, offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities. I know in a time when we’re afflicted by short-termism, we’re not looking over the horizon for the investments that we need to make in our fellow citizens, in our children. So I’m well aware that progress will not be easy, despite the emerging bipartisan consensus for certain reforms. And that we will have to overcome deep divisions and try to begin to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust. But I am convinced, as the congenital optimist I must be to live my life, that we can rise to this challenge. We can heal our wounds. We can restore balance to our justice system and respect in our communities. And we can make sure that we take actions that are going to make a difference in the lives of those who for too long have been marginalized and forgotten. Let’s protect the rights of all our people. Let’s take on the broader inequities in our society. You can’t separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods. Despite all the progress we’ve made in this country lifting people up—and it has been extraordinary—too many of our fellow citizens are still left out. Twenty-five years ago, in his inaugural address as Mayor, David Dinkins warned of leaving “too many lost amidst the wealth and grandeur that surrounds us.” Today, his words and the emotion behind them ring truer than ever. You don’t have to look too far from this magnificent hall to find children still living in poverty or trapped in failing schools. Families who work hard but can’t afford the rising prices in their neighborhood. Mothers and fathers who fear for their sons’ safety when they go off to school—or just to go buy a pack of Skittles. These challenges are all woven together. And they all must be tackled together.
Our goal must truly be inclusive and lasting prosperity that’s measured by how many families get ahead and stay ahead… How many children climb out of poverty and stay out of prison… How many young people can go to college without breaking the bank… How many new immigrants can start small businesses … How many parents can get good jobs that allow them to balance the demands of work and family. That’s how we should measure prosperity. With all due respect, that is a far better measurement than the size of the bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings. Now even in the most painful times like those we are seeing in Baltimore … When parents fear for their children… When smoke fills the skies above our cities… When police officers are assaulted… Even then—especially then—let’s remember the aspirations and values that unite us all: That every person should have the opportunity to succeed. That no one is disposable. That every life matters. So yes, Mayor Dinkins. This is a time for wisdom. A time for honesty about race and justice in America. And, yes, a time for reform. David Dinkins is a leader we can look to. We know what he stood for. Let us take the challenge and example he presents and think about what we must do to make sure that this country we love—this city we live in—are both good and great. And please join me in saying a prayer for the family of Freddie Gray, and all the men whose names we know and those we don’t who have lost their lives unnecessarily and tragically. And in particular today, include in that prayer the people of Baltimore and our beloved country. Thank you all very much.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Pretty well written speech, no? Anyone disagree with her on this stuff?
skol asylum
Footballguy
Ecklebob Chiselfritz @RotNScoundrel
Hillary Clinton calling for restoring trust in politics is like Michael Moore at a Twinkie factory saying, "No thanks, I'm full."
11:58 AM - 29 Apr 2015
Hillary Clinton calling for restoring trust in politics is like Michael Moore at a Twinkie factory saying, "No thanks, I'm full."
11:58 AM - 29 Apr 2015
timschochet
Footballguy
Bump. Brilliant speech from last night.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't see your point here. It's not 1994. Perhaps she was right then; but she's certainly right now.
I think you love her more than Bill does.
I don't have much hope for this gov't when smart people such as yourself buy into smooth talkers and don't find a candidate with a real ideology that is similar to theirs.
timschochet
Footballguy
all joking aside I don't love her. I'm supporting her, as of now, largely for her foreign policy experience. But her speech last night surprised me. I thought it was very thoughtful, a fair analysis, and contained some good ideas. I'm impressed.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well it's hard to find a Democratic candidate with such a long a record of being against gay marriage, pro Iraq War, being tough on crime and pro-NAFTA. Of course now within the last couple months she is pro gay marriage, reduced penalties for crime, and of course she hasn't spoken on TPP but she may or may not evolve on that too (bated breath).
squistion
Footballguy
Technically, she wasn't pro Iraq War like you keep stating. She voted for the authorization for Bush to use military force based on his false claims that Iraq had WMDs and that is not the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Iraq War[edit]
On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.[84]
timschochet
Footballguy
You keep bringing all this stuff up. Let's go over it:
1. She certainly deserves criticism about her gay rights stances. So does every other major Democratic politician other than Al Gore. As far as I'm concerned, they're all hypocrites. Nonetheless, they're on the right side of this now, and most Republcan politicians are not. The next President may have several Supreme Court appointments to make. Therefore, if you are a person in favor of gay marriage and gay rights in general, this should be a pretty easy choice to make.
2. I have never blamed Hillary Clinton for her vote on Iraq. I would have probably done the same, given the information that she received. I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible error, and the governing of Iraq following the invasion was even worse. But it was a decision taken not only by the Bush Administration but also approved by the vast majority of the American public. I have long argued that had Al Gore been elected President, we still would have invaded Iraq, because American leaders like linear solutions to complex problems. Based on my reading of Hard Choices, which impressed me greatly, I think that Hillary will take a much more nuanced approach to foreign policy in the future, which is what I want.
3. She's still tough on crime, but not simplistic on crime, which are two different things. Again, I was impressed by her speech last night. It was nuanced, and full of good ideas on how to approach these very difficult issues. Not all of them may succeed; we'll have to see. But she's thinking about it. All I've heard from her opponents, both on the left and the right, is more of the same rhetoric I've been reading now for 30 years.
4. I'm glad she and her husband were pro-NAFTA. I expect she will be pro TPP as well, and there will be a vigorous debate between her and Sanders on this issue. I hope so. I will be highly disappointed if she comes out against TPP; that might prevent me from voting for her. I am very pro-free trade. That's an issue where I strongly disagree with most progressives about. (Actually, I need to put that another way- I don't disagree with any of their stated concerns- I just think the positives outweigh the negatives.)
Satisfied?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This has been really well discussed but I refer you to her actual words, her speech. She brought her own views and her husband's administration into the speech, which was very influential in either convincing or providing cover for other Democrats who voted for the war. The reality is she thought it would be over quickly and that she would be running for president herself soon and she didn't want to be on the wrong end of the vote. Nothing in her speech supports the version she has been bandying about since 2008, which btw she did have to be dragged into.
squistion
Footballguy
And I again refer you to what she was actually voting on, which was an authorization for Bush to use force based on ginned up intelligence that she did not have access to (and being briefed is not the same thing). And that is why you see that most democrats don't have a problem with this nor hold her responsible for the war as you seem to do.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
People had a serious problem with it in 2008, not just her vote but her waffling on explaining it. It's faded with time and with the withdrawal, that's why it has less of an impact now.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Honestly, I think this is fair, perfectly legitimate reason to vote against the GOP if you believe that, let's just not pretend what the NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, Newsweek, Time, etc., are reporting isn't/wasn't happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Nice to see people convincing themselves that Hillary didn't "really" vote for war with Iraq now that they have no other realistic alternative. It's like Stockholm syndrome for partisans.
squistion
Footballguy
By people you mean some democrats, I don't think those on the right had "a serious problem with it". And its impact on 2016 will be minimal.
Actually her serious problem in 2008 was she was facing a charismatic once in a generation candidate who came out against the war. Before Obama emerged during the primaries, I (and many other democrats) had a grumbling acceptance of Hillary as the nominee and she was a reluctant choice over the other opposition (who, like John Edwards also voted for the resolution). And the feeling was the 2002 vote had put her between a rock and a hard place - she had no way to independently verify the false WMD claims and what if she voted against authorizing force and then Manhattan gets nuked? I really didn't hear the sentiment that people could never vote for Hillary because of that, more along the lines being disappointed, but understanding the situation she had found herself in.
- Status
Similar threads
