What's new
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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's been mentioned as a presidential candidate for a while now, I think he was talked about as a good administrator who people liked. The Demos actually from DC/MD here don't seem to like him, and I have no idea how he gets blamed for Baltimore except that it just appears to be a mess. Ironically the Gopper Gov Hogan appears to have come off really well. - I think it's also a glimpse of what could have been a whole generation of new Demo names who could have been running sans Hillary, it could have been an interesting and promising race.

 
You mean like Booker and Castro- those are the young Dem names I always hear.

In truth the Democratic Party, now that OBAMA is leaving, seems bereft of heavyweights, which might be one reason they did so badly last November. I know many people consider Hillary to be a retread, but who else? From the moment Obama selected an older man to be VP this was pre-ordained.

 
People believe there is enmity between the Obamas and the Clintons, but when you think about it he really paved the way for her. First he chose Biden to be VP rather than the traditional

sucessor type. Then he made Hillary S of S (perhaps in part because he wished to avoid her criticism and a possible challenge in 2012?) but that rehabilitated her image.

 
People believe there is enmity between the Obamas and the Clintons, but when you think about it he really paved the way for her. First he chose Biden to be VP rather than the traditional

sucessor type. Then he made Hillary S of S (perhaps in part because he wished to avoid her criticism and a possible challenge in 2012?) but that rehabilitated her image.
He paved the way for her? That would be pretty funny to see a reporter pose that statement to Hillary and Bill.

Hillary threatened to burn the whole party convention down if she did not get what she wanted how she wanted it.

 
He's been mentioned as a presidential candidate for a while now, I think he was talked about as a good administrator who people liked. The Demos actually from DC/MD here don't seem to like him, and I have no idea how he gets blamed for Baltimore except that it just appears to be a mess. Ironically the Gopper Gov Hogan appears to have come off really well. - I think it's also a glimpse of what could have been a whole generation of new Demo names who could have been running sans Hillary, it could have been an interesting and promising race.
Every single person I know who has a brain - some so liberal, they make Ted Kennedy look like Ted Cruz - wanted that dude gone out of Annapolis well before his term ran out. I'm sure he had lots of blind followers who would've voted for him in perpetuity, but most thinking people of all political stripes were done with him.

He's a cypher. There's no substance whatsoever. And no personality to off-set the emptiness.

 
You mean like Booker and Castro- those are the young Dem names I always hear.

In truth the Democratic Party, now that OBAMA is leaving, seems bereft of heavyweights, which might be one reason they did so badly last November. I know many people consider Hillary to be a retread, but who else? From the moment Obama selected an older man to be VP this was pre-ordained.
Yes like Booker (who I like). Castro is not a national politician, he will be the VP but he could have never run, he's (was) just the mayor of San Antonio.

Amy Klobuchar, Liz Warren, Deval Patrick are some others who could have run, but really there is a whole slew of young politicians who we won't get to see on the national stage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's been mentioned as a presidential candidate for a while now, I think he was talked about as a good administrator who people liked. The Demos actually from DC/MD here don't seem to like him, and I have no idea how he gets blamed for Baltimore except that it just appears to be a mess. Ironically the Gopper Gov Hogan appears to have come off really well. - I think it's also a glimpse of what could have been a whole generation of new Demo names who could have been running sans Hillary, it could have been an interesting and promising race.
Every single person I know who has a brain - some so liberal, they make Ted Kennedy look like Ted Cruz - wanted that dude gone out of Annapolis well before his term ran out. I'm sure he had lots of blind followers who would've voted for him in perpetuity, but most thinking people of all political stripes were done with him.

He's a cypher. There's no substance whatsoever. And no personality to off-set the emptiness.
Beats me, that's what I'm talking about. Last summer and fall his name would always come up in those presidential contender articles. I would trust someone from MD on the subject that's for sure.

 
He's been mentioned as a presidential candidate for a while now, I think he was talked about as a good administrator who people liked. The Demos actually from DC/MD here don't seem to like him, and I have no idea how he gets blamed for Baltimore except that it just appears to be a mess. Ironically the Gopper Gov Hogan appears to have come off really well. - I think it's also a glimpse of what could have been a whole generation of new Demo names who could have been running sans Hillary, it could have been an interesting and promising race.
Every single person I know who has a brain - some so liberal, they make Ted Kennedy look like Ted Cruz - wanted that dude gone out of Annapolis well before his term ran out. I'm sure he had lots of blind followers who would've voted for him in perpetuity, but most thinking people of all political stripes were done with him.

He's a cypher. There's no substance whatsoever. And no personality to off-set the emptiness.
Beats me, that's what I'm talking about. Last summer and fall his name would always come up in those presidential contender articles. I would trust someone from MD on the subject that's for sure.
There are others here from MD who are much more in tune to MD politics these days and can give you a better handle on the general consensus. I haven't lived in MD in almost 5 years. I know I didn't like him when I did.

I moved to VA, which was a whole other kettle of fish - governor was already embroiled in controversy (since convicted), and there were two more nitwits running to replace him.

O'Malley got elected towards the end of the RE boom and, if there's a state can be said to be relatively recession-proof, it's Maryland. Besides being one of the most affluent states, the Federal Government being where it is helps a ton.

 
I know nothing about O'Malley. Never even heard of him until a couple of months ago.

Apparently, though, some people in Baltimore are blaming him for the riots there. Is that at all fair?
Only in the sense that he claimed a "get tough on crime" mandate when elected mayor. But that's nothing new, and neither is the Baltimore PD being brutish. As much as I dislike O'Malley, it's not fair to pin this on him (though, no doubt his opponents in upcoming elections will try).

 
So once O'Malley declares, then Chafee and that's it right? No chance of Biden or anyone else?
I think Biden is out, for whatever reason, I'm surprised by that. Cheney was the rare VP who was never going to run (and he was an exception, and not a good one, in a lot of ways), but Biden seems to be the classic VP who should seek to continue the president's agenda. It's rare that a VP doesn't run, it may be the first time in over a century that VP's have not run two consecutive administrations.

Besides O'Malley, Chafee, Sanders - Jim Webb, who I like a lot, is probably going to run. i hope.

I think a possible surprise candidate might be Bill DiBlasio.

Warren.... this trade deal is leaving things hanging. If Hillary supports the TPP, then Warren could get in later this fall, IMO. But I think Hillary will oppose it, OTOH Hillary will just go with whatever side wins or whichever is popular. She also has her big corporate friends and her husband's clients and donors to think about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?

 
Slapdash said:
Slapdash, on 15 May 2015 - 4:44 PM, said:
BassNBrew said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
She isn't promoting that agenda at all.
So far, she has proposed:

A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

Significant government action to combat climate change.

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-gift-to-democrats/2015/05/14/515a2e7e-fa71-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

A gift basket for Clinton from the GOP

By Eugene Robinson

At this point in the campaign, do you see the Republican presidential hopeful whos going to beat Hillary Clinton? I didnt think so.

Not if what were watching now is the best the GOP can do. Maybe a thoroughbred will emerge from the coming debates, assuming the party finds a way to cram all the candidates onto the same stage. So far, however, most of the GOP field seems to be in a contest to make the likely Democratic nominee look better. Jeb Bush has been the biggest disappointment. Its one thing to be rusty after spending a few years away from politics indeed, Clintons handling of her e-mail controversy was less than balletic. But Bush shows no sign of having given more than a passing thought to the central challenge he faces in reaching the White House: the fact that his brother got there first and made a mess of things.

 
Slapdash said:
Slapdash, on 15 May 2015 - 4:44 PM, said:
BassNBrew said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
She isn't promoting that agenda at all.
So far, she has proposed:

A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. link

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary. link

Significant government action to combat climate change. link

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I didn't bother to grab a link on "systematic racism" but are you really arguing that positions that most American's support is a "progressive agenda"?

 
Slapdash said:
Slapdash, on 15 May 2015 - 4:44 PM, said:

BassNBrew said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:

61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
She isn't promoting that agenda at all.
So far, she has proposed:A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. link

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary. link

Significant government action to combat climate change. link

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I didn't bother to grab a link on "systematic racism" but are you really arguing that positions that most American's support is a "progressive agenda"?
Im not really arguing anything, just curious as to why Slapdash doesn't regard any of this as progressive.
 
Slapdash said:
Slapdash, on 15 May 2015 - 4:44 PM, said:

BassNBrew said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:

61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
She isn't promoting that agenda at all.
So far, she has proposed:A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. link

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary. link

Significant government action to combat climate change. link

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I didn't bother to grab a link on "systematic racism" but are you really arguing that positions that most American's support is a "progressive agenda"?
Im not really arguing anything, just curious as to why Slapdash doesn't regard any of this as progressive.
It isn't 2008 any longer? These are all main stream agenda items in 2015.

 
Slapdash said:
Slapdash, on 15 May 2015 - 4:44 PM, said:

BassNBrew said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:

61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
She isn't promoting that agenda at all.
So far, she has proposed:A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. link

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary. link

Significant government action to combat climate change. link

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I didn't bother to grab a link on "systematic racism" but are you really arguing that positions that most American's support is a "progressive agenda"?
Im not really arguing anything, just curious as to why Slapdash doesn't regard any of this as progressive.
It isn't 2008 any longer? These are all main stream agenda items in 2015.
And in 2015 it would be hard for a GOP voter to find a Democratic president with as long a history of pro Wall Street policies, anti gay marriage rhetoric, pro free trade policies, and strong anti crime legislation, as the Clintons'.

I think maybe a very telling recent news story though is that her email server is actually registered to a JP Morgan bond broker:

But right around that time, in October 2002, a man named Eric Hothem began working at Citigroup, according to financial records database BrightScope. He moved to JP Morgan in May 2013. ... Although ABC News has not been able to definitively link them, The New York Times reported that the current JP Morgan employee is the same man as Clinton's former aide. ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-mystery-man-eric-hoteham/story?id=29413827

And of course her son in law (and Chelsea) were set up in business by Goldman Sachs.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/goldman-sachs-ceo-key-investor-hillarys-son-laws-hedgefund_838821.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

And nothing says liberal / progressive like wanting to amend the 1st Amendment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gotta Love this NYTimes headline:

Today in Politics: Hillary Clinton’s Busy Week Presents More Opportunities for No Questions

She has gone more than three weeks without taking questions from reporters, a fact highlighted by the multiple media availabilities and interviews many of her Democratic and Republican rivals gave in the last week alone. She still hasn’t faced questions about her family’s foundation, or the $25 million she and her husband have made on paid speeches since January 2014It was a week in which the 2016 presidential conversation was driven by Jeb Bush’s stumbling over questions about whether he would have chosen to invade Iraq, as his brother did, in 2003.

Mrs. Clinton’s vote authorizing that use of force helped cost her the 2008 Democratic nomination. She has since disavowed the vote, but was slow to do so. And she has yet to discuss it in this cycle in depth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
The Commish, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
and she isn't even doing that :shrug:
So far, she has proposed:

A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

Significant government action to combat climate change.

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?

 
Most disastrous tenure ever for a Secretary of State?
Unfortunately, because I really have always liked the man, this has to go to Colin Powell. (And before that, to Dean Rusk.)

I would rank Hillary Clinton in the top 3 of the modern era, right behind George Marshall and Dean Acheson.

 
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Clinton-returns-to-Iowa-to-help-rally-caucus-6270534.php

MASON CITY, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that if elected president, she would make opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for unlimited political donations a litmus test for nominees to the high court.

"I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy elections," Clinton told about 50 supporters at a house party in Iowa.

While Clinton has previously said she would support a constitutional amendment overturning the 2010 decision known as Citizens United, she has not previously said publicly that she would use the ruling as a benchmark for nominating justices.

She added Monday she is consulting with legal experts about other ways the court's ruling in the case could be trumped.

Despite her staunch opposition to Citizens United, which helped usher into politics groups known as super PACs that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash, Clinton is directly courting donors for a super PAC backing her candidacy.

Democrats were initially reluctant in the elections after the court ruled in Citizens United to fully embrace such outside groups, while Republicans did so with fewer reservations and are aggressively raising money for them in the early days of the 2016 campaign.

Clinton's stop in the northern Iowa town of Mason City marked her second trip to the state since she formally launched her campaign last month. She spent more than an hour talking with local officials, campaign organizers and volunteers — the type of small-scale campaigning some Iowa Democrats say she didn't do enough of during her first bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Clinton placed third in the Iowa caucus that year, behind President Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

The hosts of Monday's event, Dean Genth and Gary Swenson, campaigned actively for Obama in 2008. Genth said he didn't choose Obama over Clinton for any ideological reasons, but more because he "captured everyone's imaginations with his charismatic campaign and his ability to connect to the grassroots."

While Clinton so far doesn't face as tough of a primary challenge as she did in 2008, her campaign is eager to show she's learned lessons from her past missteps. The campaign has hired 21 caucus organizers and six regional field directors who are seeking commitments from voters to caucus for Clinton early next year.

The early organizing could also yield longer-term benefits for Clinton's campaign, should she win her party's nomination. Iowa will be among the competitive battleground states in the general election and her campaign can draw on the voter contacts it makes now next year.

Clinton arrived in Iowa under pressure from Republicans who want her to clarify her position on a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal being debated on Capitol Hill. While Clinton was supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she has been largely silent on the matter since announcing her campaign.

Obama's push for the trade deal has angered some liberal Democrats who fear the agreement with Japan and several other nations would hurt U.S. companies and workers.

As she opened her remarks Monday, Clinton subtly defended her decision to avoid wading into the trade debate or taking questions from reporters on a range of other issues.

Though she never mentioned the Republican criticism directly, she said small events that put her in direct contact with voters are providing her with the foundation for her campaign, as well as "the kind of information I need to be an even better president."

 
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/16/clintons-take-texas-1972/

WASHINGTON — As Garry Mauro drove up to Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern’s Texas headquarters in October 1972, a young couple burst out of the office, begging for a ride to the Austin airport.

Mauro, who would serve as state land commissioner from 1983 to 1999, obliged, racing the tall, bushy-haired Democratic operative and the 24-year-old law student from West Sixth Street east to the Robert Mueller Airport.

“We gotta get to New Haven because we gotta register late for law school,” Mauro, now 67, recalled Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham saying.

It was a frantic moment that followed an impetuous decision by the Yale Law School students to come to Texas for a doomed political endeavor in the middle of their studies.

Thanks to several books — including the Clintons' own memoirs — their short few months in Texas have become a part of Austin lore. The couple worked on the failed Texas campaign for McGovern, a liberal U.S. senator from South Dakota. During their few months in Austin, San Antonio and elsewhere, Clinton and Rodham befriended several allies who would help Bill Clinton’s political ascent in Arkansas and on to the White House. And as Hillary Clinton makes a second run for the White House, some of those bonds forged in Texas are poised to help again.


Bill Clinton arrived to Austin first as McGovern's Texas political point man, but Hillary Rodham was not far behind.

“Bill asked if I wanted to go too,” she wrote in her memoir, Living History. “I did, but only if I had a specific job.”

That job was registering black and Hispanic South Texas voters for the Democratic National Committee.

The campaign's challenge was insurmountable. McGovern’s liberal policies repelled old Lyndon B. Johnson allies like John Connally, who led the “Democrats for Nixon” effort. Stricken by a state party at war with itself, McGovern ended up losing Texas in November by a two-to-one margin.

But ever since, the Clintons have had a personal connection to the state.

“Although Bill was the only person I knew when I got to Austin, Texas in August, I quickly made some of the best friends I’ve ever had," Hillary Clinton wrote in her memoir.

Clinton declined to be interviewed for this story. And many of the people who worked with her on the 1972 campaign have passed away. But there are still several who worked with her in Texas who remember the serious and driven law student.

“We Want a Real Lawyer”


Sara Ehrman first laid eyes on Rodham in McGovern’s San Antonio headquarters, a former nursing home.

A longtime Washington-based Democratic political operative, Ehrman led the campaign for South Texas. She and her team put up out an S.O.S. to Washington that they were in dire need of legal counsel.

What they got was a law student who looked more like an undergraduate, dressed in all brown: pants, shirt and glasses.

“This young woman looked 19 years old, and she came in and said she was a lawyer, and everybody started howling and saying we want a real lawyer," Ehrman said.

Even so, Ehrman, who was in her 50s, instantly formed a maternal bond with Rodham.

“We were not Texans,” Ehrman, now 96, said of the connection. “We did not know all the intricacies of Texas politics, which were very complicated at the time."

Ehrman describes Rodham's brief stint at the San Antonio headquarters as "prepared, mature for her age, focused and in charge."

“We bonded,” she added. “We just knew each other.”

Rodham split her time between San Antonio and Austin, where Bill Clinton was based with writer Taylor Branch. Branch and Clinton ran the state campaign together and the three shared an apartment.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is now in her 12th term in Congress, worked closely with Bill Clinton on the 1972 campaign. But she recalled encountering the couple together just once during that time.

“I only saw them together one time, and then he treated her very gently, but I didn’t really realize” they were dating, she said in an interview.

Besides Ehrman, one of Rodham’s closest friends from the Texas experience was a University of Texas at Austin graduate named Betsey Wright.

Wright would often visit Barton Springs with Rodham, according to David Maraniss' book on Bill Clinton, First in His Class.

But she would have an exhilarating and rocky political future. She would later move to Arkansas and become a pivotal Clinton operative during his rise in state politics, serving as Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of staff and campaign manager in the 1980s. Many have said she was the inspiration for Kathy Bates’ political enforcer character in the novel and movie Primary Colors, a roman à clef on the Clintons.

Bill Clinton called Wright "the Texan who had, by far, the greatest impact on my career."

“Without Betsey Wright, I could not have become president," Bill Clinton later wrote in his memoir.

The Clintons, however, "cut her loose before they moved into the White House" according to The New York Times. She pleaded no contest in 2010 to charges that she attempted to smuggle contraband inside of a Doritos bag while on a 2009 visit to death row. Wright now lives in Arkansas, and in recent years she was a fellow for a state library system.

Wright did not respond to emailed questions for this story. But in 1992, she said in a New York Magazine interview that, like Mauro, she was impressed that the couple worked full time on a presidential campaign while simultaneously attending law school.

“I’d never been exposed to people like that before. I mean, they spent the whole semester in Texas, never attended a class —then went back to Yale and aced their finals,” she said.

Did Mauro ever see either one of them study?

“Christ, no,” he said.

A Lost Cause

Neither Rodham nor any of her colleagues were under the impression that they could deliver a Texas victory to the McGovern campaign.

“We all knew McGovern wasn’t going to win,” Mauro said in a recent interview with The Texas Tribune. “But historically, you just didn’t get less than 40 percent of the vote [in Texas] if you were a major party nominee.”

This was the first time 18-year-olds could vote in a presidential election, adding to Rodham’s challenge in registering South Texas voters. She also concentrated on Hispanic voters. Franklin Garcia, who died in 1984, was her guide in the region.

"Hispanics in South Texas were, understandably, wary of a blond girl from Chicago who didn’t speak a word of Spanish," Clinton wrote in Living History. "[Garcia] took me to places I never could have gone along and vouched for me to Mexican Americans who worried I might be from the immigration service or some other government agency."

Bill Clinton was often on the road, organizing events and hanging flyers in county courthouses.

But it was a lost cause.

“When the vote count came in, I’ll never forget walking out to the car,” Mauro said. “I ripped the McGovern bumper sticker off.”

The Nixon landslide did not surprise either Clinton, they would later write. Their circle of friends soon disbanded and scattered across the country. The couple made a trip to Mexico for vacation and then went back to New Haven for finals.

That Godforsaken Place

A year later, Rodham decamped in Erhman’s Washington apartment in 1973 while working as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry into the Watergate scandal. Bill Clinton headed to Arkansas to begin his political career.

Branch occasionally saw Rodham during that year.

"I could tell she loved him, but she did not want to move to Arkansas," he said, noting her awareness of her legal work's place in history.

"I did notice some strain over that," he added. "Even at the time, I was pretty sure she would do it because her attachment to him was pretty evident."

But Rodham did go to Arkansas.

“When Hillary decided to go to Arkansas to marry Bill Clinton, I drove her down,” Ehrman said. “And all the way down, for hundreds of miles, I kept saying, ‘Are you crazy? Why are you going to that Godforsaken place where you can’t even get French bread?’”

Ehrman said the conversation went in circles, and each time Hillary Rodham had the same answer: “But I love him … and I’m going to be with him.”

Over the next decades, the Clintons would return to Texas, both for delegates, campaign dollars and out of a sense of political loyalty.

Bill Clinton counts Mauro and Austin ad executives Roy Spence and Judy Trabulsi as the closest Texas friends who helped him through his presidential runs.

Mauro managed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign for Texas, and Spence was a close media adviser to Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign and is expected to hold similar influence this time around. Mauro does not have an official title with the campaign at this point, but he told the Tribune recently that he's working the phones on behalf of the couple.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, too, became a reliable Congressional and political ally, until she supported then-Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign. She immediately sided with Hillary Clinton in this presidential campaign.

Also while in Texas, the couple befriended donors like the late Bernard Rapoport of Waco, who would financially back both of their campaigns.

Texas helped deliver the Democratic nomination to Bill Clinton in 1992, and gave Hillary Clinton life support to continue her own campaign into the spring of 2008.

But also, they frequently returned to the state over the years to boost their old friends' own campaigns.

"All these people went in different directions and made a real difference," Mauro mused.

"We only got 32 percent of the vote," he added. "But...you look at all the people involved in that and what they went on to accomplish in their careers, it was probably an incubation, a seminal moment in Texas politics, if not national politics."

 
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Clinton-returns-to-Iowa-to-help-rally-caucus-6270534.php

MASON CITY, Iowa (AP) —...

Clinton arrived in Iowa under pressure from Republicans who want her to clarify her position on a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal being debated on Capitol Hill. While Clinton was supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she has been largely silent on the matter since announcing her campaign.

Obama's push for the trade deal has angered some liberal Democrats who fear the agreement with Japan and several other nations would hurt U.S. companies and workers.

As she opened her remarks Monday, Clinton subtly defended her decision to avoid wading into the trade debate or taking questions from reporters on a range of other issues.

...
Tim, question, since you have a copy of Hard Choices handy I was wondering if you would check the Table of Contents and see what Hillary says about the TPP?

 
SaintsInDome2006, on 18 May 2015 - 3:39 PM, said:SaintsInDome2006, on 18 May 2015 - 3:39 PM, said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 3:30 PM, said:timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 3:30 PM, said:http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Clinton-returns-to-Iowa-to-help-rally-caucus-6270534.php

MASON CITY, Iowa (AP) —...

Clinton arrived in Iowa under pressure from Republicans who want her to clarify her position on a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal being debated on Capitol Hill. While Clinton was supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she has been largely silent on the matter since announcing her campaign.

Obama's push for the trade deal has angered some liberal Democrats who fear the agreement with Japan and several other nations would hurt U.S. companies and workers.

As she opened her remarks Monday, Clinton subtly defended her decision to avoid wading into the trade debate or taking questions from reporters on a range of other issues.

...
Tim, question, since you have a copy of Hard Choices handy I was wondering if you would check the Table of Contents and see what Hillary says about the TPP?
Just looked. There are only two paragraphs:

One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish "a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement" that "is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets." It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

Our country had learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then-Senator Obama and I promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. it's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She's so ####### smooth. You're never going to catch her in a hypocrisy, no matter how hard you try. Those 2 paragraphs appear to be completely in favor of TPP, and yet she's smart enough to add that line about "withholding judgment." Totally gives her an out if public opinion goes the other way. Politicians running for high office get caught all the time when they are challenged by their own words in quotes made in books years before. Never gonna happen to Hillary.

 
She's so ####### smooth. You're never going to catch her in a hypocrisy, no matter how hard you try. Those 2 paragraphs appear to be completely in favor of TPP, and yet she's smart enough to add that line about "withholding judgment." Totally gives her an out if public opinion goes the other way. Politicians running for high office get caught all the time when they are challenged by their own words in quotes made in books years before. Never gonna happen to Hillary.
It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.
Well that was her conclusion. If she changes her mind she will either have to explain how 1. the TPP changed from when she looked at it or 2. how Pres. Obama is wrong.

 
The Commish said:
The Commish, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
and she isn't even doing that :shrug:
So far, she has proposed:

A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

Significant government action to combat climate change.

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I consider them to be pretty mainstream. The only people that don't consider them to be mainstream are the far right whackos. For actual liberals, they aren't "progressive" by any stretch :shrug:

If that's "progressive" by the left's definition, the right is winning in a big way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I hope she doesn't change her mind. I don't think it's going to hurt her politically one way or the other, so I would like to see her disagree with Sanders on this at the debates. I think she will. She has the protection that Obama is on her side, and in the end no progressives are going to flee from her over this issue in the general election. I think she's silent about it now because there's no reason to create problems this early.

If she comes out against it that will disappoint me quite a bit.

 
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/16/clintons-take-texas-1972/

WASHINGTON — As Garry Mauro drove up to Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern’s Texas headquarters in October 1972, a young couple burst out of the office, begging for a ride to the Austin airport.

...Besides Ehrman, one of Rodham’s closest friends from the Texas experience was a University of Texas at Austin graduate named Betsey Wright.

Wright would often visit Barton Springs with Rodham, according to David Maraniss' book on Bill Clinton, First in His Class.

But she would have an exhilarating and rocky political future. She would later move to Arkansas and become a pivotal Clinton operative during his rise in state politics, serving as Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of staff and campaign manager in the 1980s. Many have said she was the inspiration for Kathy Bates’ political enforcer character in the novel and movie Primary Colors, a roman à clef on the Clintons.

Bill Clinton called Wright "the Texan who had, by far, the greatest impact on my career."

“Without Betsey Wright, I could not have become president," Bill Clinton later wrote in his memoir.

The Clintons, however, "cut her loose before they moved into the White House" according to The New York Times. She pleaded no contest in 2010 to charges that she attempted to smuggle contraband inside of a Doritos bag while on a 2009 visit to death row. Wright now lives in Arkansas, and in recent years she was a fellow for a state library system.

Wright did not respond to emailed questions for this story. But in 1992, she said in a New York Magazine interview that, like Mauro, she was impressed that the couple worked full time on a presidential campaign while simultaneously attending law school.

...
Still, even back in the Arkansas days, the Clintons knew how to ice out some of their more complicated friends. One recent Thursday morning, I stopped by the Little Rock apartment of Betsey Wright, just across the Interstate from the Clinton library on a leafy street lined with well-kept clapboard houses with wide porches and upholstered furniture out front. Around the corner is a Holiday Inn with a restaurant called Camp David (“a hidden treasure with a culinary style surely fit for both presidents and first ladies”; kids eat free). Wright, considered a mastermind behind Clinton’s rise in Arkansas, was among the first in a long line of surrogate family members. She headed rapid response (or what she called “bimbo eruptions”) in the 1992 election and was immortalized by Kathy Bates in the film adaptation of “Primary Colors.” After not joining Clinton’s White House staff, Wright became a lobbyist and eventually returned home and began advocating for prisoners’ rights. In 2009, though, she was arrested on 51 charges of smuggling contraband, including a box cutter and a knife and tattoo needles that were hidden in a bag of Doritos, on a visit to death row. She pleaded not guilty (and, later, no contest to lesser charges) and was released on probation. She did not respond to my many attempts to contact her, including in-person pleas to friends and a note left on her front porch.

People who have known the Clintons the longest have all sorts of theories about how one of the country’s most brilliant political minds could have ended up arrested with a bag of Doritos. She may be an extreme case, but Wright is also, some suggested, a kind of cautionary tale in how the sharp-elbowed business of being a Clinton soldier can scar some people. Wright, one Arkansas friend said, had personal issues; she became a liability — just as Solis Doyle and Penn and Band would later — and the Clintons cut her loose before they moved into the White House. Max Brantley, who is editor of The Arkansas Times and has known the Clintons for decades, told me over gumbo at the Capital Hotel bar in Little Rock that their relationship with Wright, and other aides, was more complicated than their simply rejecting her. “Is it malicious? Or a business decision justified by circumstances?” Brantley said. “Some people get eaten up by the charisma and forget that, in the end, it is a business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/magazine/hillary-clinton.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-hillary-clinton-things/story?id=31143222

"HILLARY CLINTON HAS GONE 27 DAYS WITHOUT TAKING A PRESS QUESTION"

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew ·

Part of the problem here is regular people don't really care that Hillary is ignoring media.
Why is that a problem?
I think he meant the problem the media has with this, not that it is a problem for Hillary. Twitter responses can be ambiguous.

 
The Commish said:
The Commish, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:
BassNBrew, on 15 May 2015 - 4:36 PM, said:61+ million Democrats in America and Hillary is the only legitimate option to promote the liberal/progressive agenda?
and she isn't even doing that :shrug:
So far, she has proposed:

A path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

A end to police systematic racism of young blacks.

Significant campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

Significant government action to combat climate change.

I'm curious, do you consider these issues to be outside a progressive agenda?
I consider them to be pretty mainstream. The only people that don't consider them to be mainstream are the far right whackos. For actual liberals, they aren't "progressive" by any stretch :shrug:

If that's "progressive" by the left's definition, the right is winning in a big way.
Yeah, not a very progressive agenda....nor one that she seems sincere about (when it comes to campaign finance).

 
I actually think she is sincere about campaign finance. But let's face it- it's going to be very difficult, near impossible, to overturn the CU decision. So for me it's really a non issue in the coming election.

 
Now as far as what is or what isn't a progressive agenda: I note that many liberals here are scornful of Hillary, just as many liberals have been scornful of Obama's time in office, somehow under the delusion that, facing a Republican opposition Obama could have been more progressive. It's nonsense.

My advice for the liberally minded: take what you can get. If Hillary is elected, we will see more movement on illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. We will see centrist and liberal judges nominated, including the Supreme Court. We may see real action taken with regard to climate change. We will see a continuation of Obamacare. We will see a continuation of Obama's negotiations with Iran. We will

NOT see taxes cut for the wealthy, and we will NOT see, most likely, American troops in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

With any of the GOP candidates, none of what I wrote above will be true. So take your pick.

 
Now as far as what is or what isn't a progressive agenda: I note that many liberals here are scornful of Hillary, just as many liberals have been scornful of Obama's time in office, somehow under the delusion that, facing a Republican opposition Obama could have been more progressive. It's nonsense.

My advice for the liberally minded: take what you can get. If Hillary is elected, we will see more movement on illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. We will see centrist and liberal judges nominated, including the Supreme Court. We may see real action taken with regard to climate change. We will see a continuation of Obamacare. We will see a continuation of Obama's negotiations with Iran. We will

NOT see taxes cut for the wealthy, and we will NOT see, most likely, American troops in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

With any of the GOP candidates, none of what I wrote above will be true. So take your pick.
What you call a 'pick', I call an illusion of choice. :shrug:

 
Now as far as what is or what isn't a progressive agenda: I note that many liberals here are scornful of Hillary, just as many liberals have been scornful of Obama's time in office, somehow under the delusion that, facing a Republican opposition Obama could have been more progressive. It's nonsense.

My advice for the liberally minded: take what you can get. If Hillary is elected, we will see more movement on illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. We will see centrist and liberal judges nominated, including the Supreme Court. We may see real action taken with regard to climate change. We will see a continuation of Obamacare. We will see a continuation of Obama's negotiations with Iran. We will

NOT see taxes cut for the wealthy, and we will NOT see, most likely, American troops in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

With any of the GOP candidates, none of what I wrote above will be true. So take your pick.
What you call a 'pick', I call an illusion of choice. :shrug:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Douglas Adams
 
Now as far as what is or what isn't a progressive agenda: I note that many liberals here are scornful of Hillary, just as many liberals have been scornful of Obama's time in office, somehow under the delusion that, facing a Republican opposition Obama could have been more progressive. It's nonsense.

My advice for the liberally minded: take what you can get. If Hillary is elected, we will see more movement on illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. We will see centrist and liberal judges nominated, including the Supreme Court. We may see real action taken with regard to climate change. We will see a continuation of Obamacare. We will see a continuation of Obama's negotiations with Iran. We will

NOT see taxes cut for the wealthy, and we will NOT see, most likely, American troops in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

With any of the GOP candidates, none of what I wrote above will be true. So take your pick.
What you call a 'pick', I call an illusion of choice. :shrug:
Easy to say. You and Slapdash and many others here say it all the time. But the reality is that the items I listed above really are substantial differences between the two parties. It's not just talk. Take, for example the negotiations with Iran. You may approve of them or you may not. They are very real. The Republican President will most likely stop them and Hillary will most likely continue them. It's a significant difference. Another is Ukraine. Marco Rubio wants to make Ukraine part of NATO, which means that ultimately we would guarantee her independence. Hillary won't do that. This is a pretty important decision that could affect all of our futures. And yet you guys pretend it doesn't matter who gets elected?

 
My question is how has Hillary convinced liberals and progs they can't win without her? The electoral map and advantage has been established. She is putting a whole generation of promising young pols on the sideline, and vets who have worked their whole lives for these issues like Sanders are shrugged off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now as far as what is or what isn't a progressive agenda: I note that many liberals here are scornful of Hillary, just as many liberals have been scornful of Obama's time in office, somehow under the delusion that, facing a Republican opposition Obama could have been more progressive. It's nonsense.

My advice for the liberally minded: take what you can get. If Hillary is elected, we will see more movement on illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. We will see centrist and liberal judges nominated, including the Supreme Court. We may see real action taken with regard to climate change. We will see a continuation of Obamacare. We will see a continuation of Obama's negotiations with Iran. We will

NOT see taxes cut for the wealthy, and we will NOT see, most likely, American troops in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

With any of the GOP candidates, none of what I wrote above will be true. So take your pick.
What you call a 'pick', I call an illusion of choice. :shrug:
Easy to say. You and Slapdash and many others here say it all the time.But the reality is that the items I listed above really are substantial differences between the two parties. It's not just talk. Take, for example the negotiations with Iran. You may approve of them or you may not. They are very real. The Republican President will most likely stop them and Hillary will most likely continue them. It's a significant difference. Another is Ukraine. Marco Rubio wants to make Ukraine part of NATO, which means that ultimately we would guarantee her independence. Hillary won't do that. This is a pretty important decision that could affect all of our futures. And yet you guys pretend it doesn't matter who gets elected?
You don't know what any of them will do. All you have is their "word" which means little if you're paying attention to their actions over the last decades. Nor do you know what the outcomes will be if either group gets their way. You're tying yourself up in strawmen.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top