Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Policy would be a horrible place to start a campaign. Almost no one cares about that kind of stuff.

I get the strategy of it. That is the problem with the whole situation. Many of us here are hopefully in the minority that we care about positions more than names or parties.

Those that care about positions are in the dark about where Hillary Clinton would stand?

I'm just going to say at least pretending to explain why she wants to be president and why she should be president, ie what she plans to do, would be a bare minimum. - If you're saying she is so arrogant she feels no need to introduce herself to voters or explain her positions, yeah you're right that may be the answer.

You don't explain why you want to be president or why you should be president with policy positions.

Yes you do, look at Liz Warren's Senate campaign site:

http://elizabethwarren.com/

About Liz - who she is, why she wants your vote.

Issues - where she stands, where she wants to take the country.

Hillary's site has one purpose - raise money, a portal to donate.

Elizabeth Warren has a Liz For Prez 2016 site?

I said "Senate".

Of course. One of numerous ways that site is totally irrelevant!

 

[squistion]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

Yes, and here is a link to Hillary's 2007 announcement. And guess what? She did that by a pre-recorded video too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-announcement-2008/story?id=30264756

Then and Now: Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Announcement vs. 2008

Much has changed since Hillary Clinton last entered a presidential field.

While she chose the same format -- a pre-recorded video -- to announce the start of her campaign today just as she did in Jan. 2007, her message has changed.

Here's a look at the differences between Clinton's announcement pitch in 2007: (videos at link).

 

[timschochet]

Heard some numbers on Obamacare today that will help Hillary: the percentage of Latinos without healthcare insurance has gone down by 8%. With blacks it's gone down 13%.

With regard to the Latino vote, even if immigration reform is not a factor (if Bush or Rubio is the candidate) how can any Republican win these votes if they all promise to repeal Obamacare?

Despite the beliefs of many people here I think ACA is a big winner for Hillary. It cements her coalition of women, blacks, and Latinos. As Obama demonstrated, that's 52% of the electorate right there and enough to win. Only I think she will get a lot more of the white male vote than he did as well.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Heard some numbers on Obamacare today that will help Hillary: the percentage of Latinos without healthcare insurance has gone down by 8%. With blacks it's gone down 13%.

With regard to the Latino vote, even if immigration reform is not a factor (if Bush or Rubio is the candidate) how can any Republican win these votes if they all promise to repeal Obamacare?

Despite the beliefs of many people here I think ACA is a big winner for Hillary. It cements her coalition of women, blacks, and Latinos. As Obama demonstrated, that's 52% of the electorate right there and enough to win. Only I think she will get a lot more of the white male vote than he did as well.

That's good news. They still can't afford to go the Dr since the deductibles and copays have skyrocketed. If they couldn't afford the insurance THEN because the premiums were too expensive, how can they afford the deductibles/copays now that they've skyrocketed?

You guys keep blaring this "the number of insured went down" without looking at the reality of the situation. It's a useless and irrelevant talking point if you aren't going to address the cost of health care.

 

[timschochet]

That coalition I mentioned of 52%- woman, blacks and Latinos- let's call it the "Obama Coalition"- is similar to the Roosevelt coalition of unions, northern liberals, and southern Democrats that dominated American politics from 1932 to 1967 giving us the New Deal and the Great Society. Then the Southern Democrats became Republicans and from 1968 to 2007 the GOP dominated Presidential politics. Now the cycle has reversed again: the infusion of Latino voting has swung the balance back to the Dems where it will be for quite some time- and we can therefore anticipate less tax cuts and more big government programs like Obamacare in the future- IF the Dems can win back Congress. Otherwise gridlock and dysfunction.

 

[shadrap]

I DON'T WANT IT.

I don't want interviews with Bill slyly talking about what it will mean to be history's first "First Gentleman."

I don't want right-wingers talking about what a horrible leftist Hillary is, when the reality of her actions demonstrate that she is in thrall to Wall Street and is gruesomely hawkish on foreign policy.

I don't want left-wingers falling in line behind a presumptive nominee who has sold out their ideals time after time.

I don't want Hillary's awkward "I'm so surprised to see you!" face everytime she walks on stage at an event.

I don't want to see or hear Chelsea Clinton, ever.

I am so sick of this election already, and it's more than 18 months away.

I take it you consider yourself a progressive. I was born in 1965; let's take a look at the Democratic party candidates in my lifetime:

HUMPHREY- centrist Democrat- lost

MCGOVERN- liberal Democrat- lost

CARTER- centrist Democrat- won, then lost

MONDALE- centrist Democrat- lost

DUKAKIS- liberal Democrat- lost

CLINTON- centrist Democrat- won twice

GORE- liberal Democrat- lost

KERRY- liberal Democrat- lost

OBAMA- campaigned as liberal Democrat, governed as centrist Democrat- won twice

I don't see any liberal Democrats here who have won the Presidency and then governed as a liberal Democrat. Hillary MAY be your best shot. She is probably more liberal than she has campaigned in the past. She make actually govern as a liberal (though personally I hope not.) But if you're looking for an actual self-proclaimed liberal Democrat (like Liz Warren, for example) to campaign as a liberal Democrat, get elected, and then govern as a liberal Democrat- that's not going to happen. With the possible exception of FDR in 1936, it's NEVER happened.

Your classification of Obama governing as a centrist Democrat is entirely different than my classification of his governing. Oh well.

 

[timschochet]

Heard some numbers on Obamacare today that will help Hillary: the percentage of Latinos without healthcare insurance has gone down by 8%. With blacks it's gone down 13%.

With regard to the Latino vote, even if immigration reform is not a factor (if Bush or Rubio is the candidate) how can any Republican win these votes if they all promise to repeal Obamacare?

Despite the beliefs of many people here I think ACA is a big winner for Hillary. It cements her coalition of women, blacks, and Latinos. As Obama demonstrated, that's 52% of the electorate right there and enough to win. Only I think she will get a lot more of the white male vote than he did as well.

That's good news. They still can't afford to go the Dr since the deductibles and copays have skyrocketed. If they couldn't afford the insurance THEN because the premiums were too expensive, how can they afford the deductibles/copays now that they've skyrocketed?

You guys keep blaring this "the number of insured went down" without looking at the reality of the situation. It's a useless and irrelevant talking point if you aren't going to address the cost of health care.

i wasn't making an argument about ACA, merely pointing out how I think it's going to affect the election.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Heard some numbers on Obamacare today that will help Hillary: the percentage of Latinos without healthcare insurance has gone down by 8%. With blacks it's gone down 13%.

With regard to the Latino vote, even if immigration reform is not a factor (if Bush or Rubio is the candidate) how can any Republican win these votes if they all promise to repeal Obamacare?

Despite the beliefs of many people here I think ACA is a big winner for Hillary. It cements her coalition of women, blacks, and Latinos. As Obama demonstrated, that's 52% of the electorate right there and enough to win. Only I think she will get a lot more of the white male vote than he did as well.

That's good news. They still can't afford to go the Dr since the deductibles and copays have skyrocketed. If they couldn't afford the insurance THEN because the premiums were too expensive, how can they afford the deductibles/copays now that they've skyrocketed?

You guys keep blaring this "the number of insured went down" without looking at the reality of the situation. It's a useless and irrelevant talking point if you aren't going to address the cost of health care.

i wasn't making an argument about ACA, merely pointing out how I think it's going to affect the election.

My point was that it's a useless talking point. People STILL can't afford insurance. I hope she runs with that argument and the GOP can blast her six ways to Sunday.

But then again, the GOP is great at blasting themselves six ways to Sunday too. Whatever.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

2:10

Cannot even imagine Hillary generating that kind of enthusiasm.

 

[timschochet]

You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter whether Clinton talks about ACA or not. The point is Latinos are not, as a general rule, going to be enthusiastic about any GOP politician who talks about repealing ACA. They LIKE ACA; they think it's good for them. You can try and convince them otherwise; good luck with that. It's cementing the coalition into place.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

This was Obama's announcement he was

running in 2007:

She won't which is why you will see a very negative campaign from her if she is the Democratic nomination. Hillary doesn't need to generate a ton of enthusiasm for her as much as she needs to prevent it from a GOP candidate. 2.5B can pay for a lot of attack ads.

 

[shadrap]

Hillary wants to portray herself as just an ordinary person. Apparently her & Bill were dead broke when they left the white house so she stole some furniture. Depending on the situation she can also be black down for the struggle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

yep, pretty genuine lady.

 

[squistion]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

2:10

Cannot even imagine Hillary generating that kind of enthusiasm.

Apples and oranges. Obama was a once in a generation candidate. Not a fair comparison, as I can't imagine anyone else generating that kind of enthusiasm either.

 

[timschochet]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

Reagan. Sarah Palin during the first month. That's about it.

 

[mcintyre1]

I DON'T WANT IT.

I don't want interviews with Bill slyly talking about what it will mean to be history's first "First Gentleman."

I don't want right-wingers talking about what a horrible leftist Hillary is, when the reality of her actions demonstrate that she is in thrall to Wall Street and is gruesomely hawkish on foreign policy.

I don't want left-wingers falling in line behind a presumptive nominee who has sold out their ideals time after time.

I don't want Hillary's awkward "I'm so surprised to see you!" face everytime she walks on stage at an event.

I don't want to see or hear Chelsea Clinton, ever.

I am so sick of this election already, and it's more than 18 months away.

I take it you consider yourself a progressive. I was born in 1965; let's take a look at the Democratic party candidates in my lifetime:

HUMPHREY- centrist Democrat- lost

MCGOVERN- liberal Democrat- lost

CARTER- centrist Democrat- won, then lost

MONDALE- centrist Democrat- lost

DUKAKIS- liberal Democrat- lost

CLINTON- centrist Democrat- won twice

GORE- liberal Democrat- lost

KERRY- liberal Democrat- lost

OBAMA- campaigned as liberal Democrat, governed as centrist Democrat- won twice

I don't see any liberal Democrats here who have won the Presidency and then governed as a liberal Democrat. Hillary MAY be your best shot. She is probably more liberal than she has campaigned in the past. She make actually govern as a liberal (though personally I hope not.) But if you're looking for an actual self-proclaimed liberal Democrat (like Liz Warren, for example) to campaign as a liberal Democrat, get elected, and then govern as a liberal Democrat- that's not going to happen. With the possible exception of FDR in 1936, it's NEVER happened.

Considering he won four consecutive terms in the aftermath of the Great Depression during which many in the public began questioning the fundamental structures of capitalism and supporting radical economic ideas (sound familiar?), that's a pretty damn big exception.

You'd probably need to count Teddy, too, even though that was before the flip.

 

[squistion]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

2:10

Cannot even imagine Hillary generating that kind of enthusiasm.

Apples and oranges. Obama was a once in a generation candidate. Not a fair comparison, as I can't imagine anyone else generating that kind of enthusiasm either.

Reagan. Sarah Palin during the first month. That's about it.

I meant among the current candidates or potential candidates on the scene.

As far as historical examples, I think JFK makes the list, but I am not too sure a flash-in-the-pan like Palin really counts.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Technically the "wrong thread" but did anyone notice that Marco Rubio announced today?

 

[Jim11]

Vince Foster B 1945 D 1993

 

[Fennis]

Benghazi

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Technically the "wrong thread" but did anyone notice that Marco Rubio announced today?

Yes, and he actually spoke live in front of a large crowd.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was Obama's announcement he was

running in 2007:

Yep. Expect a lot of fear.

 

[njherdfan]

This was Obama's announcement he was

running in 2007:

Maybe something like "the world is on fire!!!!"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That coalition I mentioned of 52%- woman, blacks and Latinos- let's call it the "Obama Coalition"- is similar to the Roosevelt coalition of unions, northern liberals, and southern Democrats that dominated American politics from 1932 to 1967 giving us the New Deal and the Great Society. Then the Southern Democrats became Republicans and from 1968 to 2007 the GOP dominated Presidential politics. Now the cycle has reversed again: the infusion of Latino voting has swung the balance back to the Dems where it will be for quite some time- and we can therefore anticipate less tax cuts and more big government programs like Obamacare in the future- IF the Dems can win back Congress. Otherwise gridlock and dysfunction.

Let's face it, it all goes down in OH, WI, MI, IA, VA, NC, FL, CO, NH, NM... same battleground states, city turnout vs rural energy. Next verse, same as the last.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

Yes, and here is a link to Hillary's 2007 announcement. And guess what? She did that by a pre-recorded video too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-announcement-2008/story?id=30264756

Then and Now: Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Announcement vs. 2008

Much has changed since Hillary Clinton last entered a presidential field.

While she chose the same format -- a pre-recorded video -- to announce the start of her campaign today just as she did in Jan. 2007, her message has changed.

Here's a look at the differences between Clinton's announcement pitch in 2007: (videos at link).

Right, I think I mentioned that before.

What do you see as differences?

"Foreign Policy ... What She Said Today: Nothing" - That's odd considering that's the resume she's running on.

One obvious difference is that before she personally spoke for the full 1:43, this time she is limited to a canned 20 seconds at the end, if that. I'm not sure she's surrounded by people who believe in her if they think her presence and focus on her in the campaign is or was a problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

One thing you can say about this is that Obama had a real home base to leap off of, Illinois, Springfield and Chicago.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Like I said, it was more of a commercial than a kickoff, and there were also some considerable differences from the 2007 announcement:

Hillary Clinton’s insultingly vapid videoThe more I watch Hillary Clinton’s announcement video, the less I like it. This may be putting it mildly.

I understand what Clinton & Co. were trying to do: Make the moment less about Hillary, more about the voters. Downplay the sense of Clinton as inevitable juggernaut and entitled successor to the dynastic throne.

Clinton’s 2007 announcement was all Hillary, all the time. She wanted to start a conversation with voters – “Let’s chat,” she said, if unconvincingly — but she also wanted to make clear: “I’m in, and I’m in to win.”

The message of Clinton 2015 was different: She’s in the race, albeit one minute and 30 seconds into the video, but she’s really in to win you, the voters, over. Just like you, planting your garden or trying to keep the dog out of the trash while the home renovations proceed (good luck with that), she’s embarked on a new venture.

What’s wrong with that?

For one, the video was relentlessly, insultingly vapid — a Verizon commercial without the substance. “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” Clinton said in what passed for a meaty message. “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”

Seriously, this makes Ronald Reagan’s gauzy “It’s Morning Again in America” commercial look like a Brookings Institution seminar on economic policy. Understood — an announcement video isn’t the moment for a detailed policy platform, but it is, or should be, a venue for at least nodding to specific goals.

In 2007, for instance, Clinton cited specifics: “how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq … how to make us energy independent … how to end the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare … how every American can have quality affordable health care.”

Sunday’s announcement — well, I just quoted the entirety of its substance. The Clinton campaign is focused on reassuring voters, as a campaign official put it in a conference call Monday previewing Clinton’s Iowa trip, “it isn’t about her … this is about … everyday Iowans.” But everyday Iowans deserve to hear more from the woman who would be president about what, exactly, she intends to do in office. It disrespects them to spend precious video seconds on the cute boy playing a fish in his school play.

Adding insult to vacuousness was the demographic box-checking nature of the video, however beautifully filmed. Working mom, check. Hispanic entrepreneur, check. Retiring grandma, check. Gay couple, check. African-American family, check. Hardworking small-businessman, check. South Asian, inter-racial, lesbian, check, check, check. If your demographic was not featured, you should write the campaign and it will probably splice you in.

Clinton has an undeniable challenge. She is the best-known woman in the world and has a seemingly clear path to the Democratic nomination. She wants to avoid alienating voters by appearing entitled and overconfident. If George H.W. Bush’s unintentional slogan for the 1992 campaign was “Message: I care,” Clinton’s is, “Message: I’m humble.”

Got it, and okay, there will be time enough for policy. Indeed, no politician does policy more seriously, with more detailed attention to the briefing books and seminars with the experts, than Hillary Clinton. This combination of intelligence and drive is actually a good reason to elect her president. Not that you would know it from this launch.

Might I suggest, candidate Clinton? The best way to demonstrate your humility to voters is to take them and their presidential choice seriously, not to pander and condescend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/13/hillary-clintons-insultingly-vapid-video/

 

[timschochet]

I liked the video. But I enjoy being pandered to.

 

[timschochet]

Lol, articles like the one Saints just posted (by Ruth Marcus) are just so ridiculous. Hillary is winning by a bazillion points, the Democratic race is completely without drama, so people are looking for SOMETHING to write about and criticize, anything.

 

[jon_mx]

Lol, articles like the one Saints just posted (by Ruth Marcus) are just so ridiculous. Hillary is winning by a bazillion points, the Democratic race is completely without drama, so people are looking for SOMETHING to write about and criticize, anything.

Hillary had you at hello.

 

[timschochet]

Lol, articles like the one Saints just posted (by Ruth Marcus) are just so ridiculous. Hillary is winning by a bazillion points, the Democratic race is completely without drama, so people are looking for SOMETHING to write about and criticize, anything.

Hillary had you at hello.

She completes me.

 

[squistion]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

Yes, and here is a link to Hillary's 2007 announcement. And guess what? She did that by a pre-recorded video too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-announcement-2008/story?id=30264756

Then and Now: Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Announcement vs. 2008

Much has changed since Hillary Clinton last entered a presidential field.

While she chose the same format -- a pre-recorded video -- to announce the start of her campaign today just as she did in Jan. 2007, her message has changed.

Here's a look at the differences between Clinton's announcement pitch in 2007: (videos at link).

Right, I think I mentioned that before.

What do you see as differences?

"Foreign Policy ... What She Said Today: Nothing" - That's odd considering that's the resume she's running on.

One obvious difference is that before she personally spoke for the full 1:43, this time she is limited to a canned 20 seconds at the end, if that. I'm not sure she's surrounded by people who believe in her if they think her presence and focus on her in the campaign is or was a problem.

No, you didn't mention it and it is crucial because it means she did not do it differently than last time, so this "A-HA she didn't speak before a crowd!" means absolutely nothing as far as her campaign is concerned.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was Obama's announcement he was running in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzlsqtfm4w

Yes, and here is a link to Hillary's 2007 announcement. And guess what? She did that by a pre-recorded video too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-announcement-2008/story?id=30264756

Then and Now: Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Announcement vs. 2008

Much has changed since Hillary Clinton last entered a presidential field.

While she chose the same format -- a pre-recorded video -- to announce the start of her campaign today just as she did in Jan. 2007, her message has changed.

Here's a look at the differences between Clinton's announcement pitch in 2007: (videos at link).

Right, I think I mentioned that before.

What do you see as differences?

"Foreign Policy ... What She Said Today: Nothing" - That's odd considering that's the resume she's running on.

One obvious difference is that before she personally spoke for the full 1:43, this time she is limited to a canned 20 seconds at the end, if that. I'm not sure she's surrounded by people who believe in her if they think her presence and focus on her in the campaign is or was a problem.

No, you didn't mention it and it is crucial because it means she did not do it differently than last time, so this "A-HA she didn't speak before a crowd!" means absolutely nothing as far as her campaign is concerned.

This is what I'm referring to when I say I mentioned it before.

Eta - I'm also not sure I'm saying that the fact that she opened with a video last time as well as this time means something in and of itself, I think the differences in the videos are interesting, as you pointed out, and I also wonder if the fact that she opened with a video last time is what would be considered a good move in hindsight. I think the point in my last post linked was that she followed up with an interview session in a live audience.

 

[Jack White]

Shut down this thread and all the other election threads.

It doesn't matter who succeeds Obama as your next king:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/no_matter_who_wins_the_white_house_the_new_boss_will_be_the_same_as_the_old

“What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.”—Author Tom Clancy

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's efforts to avoid the media and possibly maybe getting hit with a question is getting comical...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuGprM5iqlk

 

[mcintyre1]

Good long essay write up from Harper's advocating against Hillary.

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What would you ask her Saints if she knocked on your door?

Hm, that is a great question, Tim.

Politically speaking, if she had a truth serum so we absolutely knew she was totally telling the truth, I would ask:

- "Why do you want to be president?"

She wants to be President because she's ambitious and that's the highest office there is. If there were some other job above President, she'd want to be that instead.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, I think that's what the truth serum would reveal. - By the way NPR reported that that was the first question out the gate at her little Iowa event today, in guessing she has to answer that question truthfully or not for a lot if people.

 

[timschochet]

I want [my granddaughter] to have every opportunity, but I want every child to have every opportunity. That’s one of the main reasons that I decided to run — because, believe me, I know that it’s not going to be easy, that I’m going to have to work hard to earn every single vote and get every caucusgoer I can round up to show up next February. But I just felt like I couldn’t walk away from what I see as the challenges we face. I want to build on what we’ve done to get out of the terrible recession and get back on our feet. We have to run the race,

 

[timschochet]

For Clinton, letting other people do the talking also provided a low-risk launch strategy — she took only one question from the press, commenting on her “great drive across the country” and said she was “running to be the champion for Americans and their families.”

She promised, before leaving: “More to come, everybody!”

A more substantive rollout — she said she would be “rolling out very specific policies over the weeks and months ahead” — is expected to begin next month with her first big rally and speech.

Clinton’s near-immediate arrival in Iowa, two days after her official announcement online, also showed she plans to turn a new page with the state that has never enjoyed a close association with a Clinton. That was appreciated by the crowd.

“We’re really happy to have you in Iowa,” said student Jason McLaughlin. “Iowans are a pretty pragmatic crowd. … We’re just regular people. We really appreciate you came here on your first stop.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-return-to-iowa-116967.html#ixzz3XKKN4Hul

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think it's clear that her wranglers have told Hillary to mention her granddaughter like a million times a day in yet another attempt to humanize her, I'm so sure she wouldn't be running if Baby Charlotte hadn't been conceived.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's clear that her wranglers have told Hillary to mention her granddaughter like a million times a day in yet another attempt to humanize her, I'm so sure she wouldn't be running if Baby Charlotte hadn't been conceived.

She wants to be your champion. Why can't you just let her?

 

[squistion]

Her handlers must not be doing a very good job at keeping her away from the public, as she held her first campaign event today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11536615/Hillary-Clinton-lays-out-agenda-at-low-key-first-campaign-event-in-Iowa.html

Hillary Clinton lays out agenda at low-key first campaign event in Iowa

Mrs Clinton strikes populist note with call to "get unnacountable money out of [politics] even if that means a constitutional amendment"

By Raf Sanchez, Monticello, Iowa

9:35PM BST 14 Apr 2015

Hillary Clinton began laying out her political agenda on Tuesday in a low-key first stop on the road that she hopes will lead to the White House.

Two days after officially announcing her candidacy to become the first female president of the United States, Mrs Clinton told her inaugural campaign event at a small community college in the tiny Iowa town of Monticello that she wanted to "fix our dysfunctional political system".

Its 3,811 residents found themselves under siege from the international media, which surrounded the small community college where Mrs Clinton was due to join local officials to talk about education policy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As Chris Matthews just stated, "no questions, no answers. Small group, no video. - Also gotta live the head of a $2 billion foundation mixing foreign and domestic money with policy and campaigning, and part of a couple who's made $100 million since leaving WH talking about corruption if the public process and the salaries of CEOs.

 

[timschochet]

It doesn't surprise me that she talks about a Constitutional Amendment, but it's sad and pathetic that people listen to it and believe it.

In order to have a Constitutional Amendment doing away with "unaccountable money", Hillary would have to not only get elected, but also get a filibuster proof majority in the House and Senate, not to mention the Dems will have to capture back 2/3rds of the the state legislatures. We would have to have a Democratic landsilde not seen in this country since...well, ever.

More and more we hear these politicians make impossible promises. None of them are ever willing to tell the truth, "Well, if I'm elected President, my power to do ANYTHING will be severly limited, so you can just forget about 90% of all the stuff you want to see happen." Instead, they pretend they're running to be dictator.

 

[timschochet]

As Chris Matthews just stated, "no questions, no answers. Small group, no video. - Also gotta live the head of a $2 billion foundation mixing foreign and domestic money with policy and campaigning, and part of a couple who's made $100 million since leaving WH talking about corruption if the public process and the salaries of CEOs.

This will be a legitimate criticism against Hillary throughout this campaign, and it's a good one. Very difficult for her to answer, IMO.

 

[squistion]

As Chris Matthews just stated, "no questions, no answers. Small group, no video. - Also gotta live the head of a $2 billion foundation mixing foreign and domestic money with policy and campaigning, and part of a couple who's made $100 million since leaving WH talking about corruption if the public process and the salaries of CEOs.

Yes, and the caption of the segment was entitled "Hillary's first campaign event" It wasn't supposed to be a press conference. And you repeatedly suggested that she would be in hiding and wouldn't have any actual campaign events until next month (and also wouldn't discuss her policies) - only took two days to prove you wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Here's an article from New Yorker that talks about this silly supposed divide between Hillary and "progressive" Democrats like Warren (and our own NC Commish):

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-and-the-democrats-inequality-agenda

But in identifying the very rich as the beneficiaries of unfair circumstances rather than of individual enterprise and hard work, and in prioritizing the material circumstances of the middle class, Clinton was clearly pitching her tent on the same turf occupied by progressives like de Blasio and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. The question, of course, is whether Clinton’s words were just talk. De Blasio was well within his rights to take a noncommittal attitude—indeed, his progressive supporters would have demanded no less.

Who cares if it's just talk or not? There is absolutely NOTHING she will be able to do about this. A tax hike on the rich? Not gonna happen, not with the House of Representatives. Banking controls and redistribution of wealth? Not a chance.

If Hillary were being truthful she'd say, "The best I can do is hold the line. If you guys don't vote for me, you'll get Republican solutions. If you do vote for me, I can keep the status quo. Take your pick!" But then again, maybe she actually believes the nonsense herself. Who knows? Politicians get into this bubble where they think they can effect change.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Watching msnbc... Totally forgot Huma is married to Wiener, him and Bill in the WH together is going to write its own SNL skit...

 

[timschochet]

Watching msnbc... Totally forgot Huma is married to Wiener, him and Bill in the WH together is going to write its own SNL skit...

She's kind of hot in a skinny Arab Jewish sort of way...