Hillary Clinton in 2016? Meh.

“Hillary will be a great president.” – Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.com

Perhaps Hillary Clinton is Markos’ cup of tea, but I’d love to see a more progressive Democratic presidential candidate, because the last thing I want is another centrist Democrat in the White House.


Related Articles

14 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton in 2016? Meh.

  1. Couldn’t agree more.

    IMHO, she’s a complete captive to Wall Street. I fear she’ll use all of Obama’s rhetoric about income inequality and then pursue the same policies that Romney advocated, with the exception of voting rights. I’ve always heard that Bill wanted to cut/privatize Social Security, but the Lewinsky scandal stopped him. It meant that he couldn’t afford to alienate liberals.

  2. The problem is that almost the entire Democratic party is captive to Wall Street. Until the Left is willing to put the kind of pressure on Democrats that the Tea Party put on Republicans in a big, coordinated way we are going to continue to get pro Wall Street, anti-union education reformers who basically resemble Republicans without the bias against the LGBT community.

    1. Paul, agree.

      AFAIK, tea party, liberals/greens/socialists agree on three issues: prosecuting Wall Street for crashing the economy in 2008, legalizing pot, and ending U.S. foreign occupations.

      A lot of the effort of the oligarchs’ media manipulation goes into keeping the 99% from unifying upon those issues on which there is significant agreement.

  3. I would disagree with the previous posts and Zach that Hlllary is a member of the Tea Party or close to it. 🙂 Please excuse the hyperbole.

    C’mon guys, She was the driving force pushing Bill more to the left. Don’t forget she was the real champion advocating Obamacare or a form of it before it was Obamacare. That’s why I voted for her in the prez primary over Obama. To compare her politics to that of Obama’s is not even close. Hillary is the first progressive ever in the White House who was not elected.

    Way back when Mrs., Senator, Secretary Clinton was just a first lady, she answered my letter recognizing her efforts. I’ve been saving it for the day she can be called “first madam POTUS.”

    1. D12,

      I’d love to be wrong about HRC. If you can find one mention of her defending Social Security against Obama’s “Grand Bargain,” I’d love to see it. For now, cutting Social Security’s off the table, but it’s no thanks to Sen. Clinton.

      As Sec. of State, she was the spearhead for multi-national oil companies trying to pillage Middle Eastern Oil. She’s been a willing supporter of U.S. occupations and drones. She’s gotten nothing done for the Palestinians.

      NAFTA is Bill Clinton’s legacy and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that she doesn’t support NAFTA on steroids, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

      1. JC, you have been listening too much to Rand Paul and Reince Priebus who also defines Hillary as joined to Bill’s hip.

        As Sec. of State, she was advocating Obama’s policies, not her own. Jesus Christ would be frustrated trying to work with Palestinian’s Hezbollha and Israel’s hawks.

        Yes,”NAFTA is Bill Clinton’s legacy…” Period

        1. I don’t make the argument that Hillary is an automatic extension of the awful Clinton compromises, but I will say she has come out strongly denying advocacy of single payer care, she has been a vote for military intervention, she voted for the Patriot Act, she sat on the board of Wal Mart and was silent on their labor practices and is a frequent recipient of Wall Street money while claiming that raising the cap on social security taxes on people over $102,000 a “middle class” tax hike. Again, on the issues I care about, she is not a progressive by her own record and according to her own actions.

          1. “…she sat on the board of WalMart and was silent on their labor practices…”

            This statement is true, false, but mostly misleading and ancient history as well as irrelevant if the complete facts are revealed on Hillary’s association with WalMart.

            Hillary served on the board for six years ending in 1992. Remember that WalMart had its beginnings in Arkansas in 1962 going national in 1970s. Also, WalMart was a client of the Rose Law firm which employed Hillary. It is not uncommon for a law firm to have a representative sit on its client’s board of directors. I believe it was during that time Hillary sat on the board.

            WalMart’s board minutes were never released for this period, so I don’t know how you determined that she did or did not express her opinion on WalMart’s labor practices. During her time on the board, yes, she did acquire stock. I would be surprised if she did not. It waa SOP from my financial experiences working for corporations. As a board member, Hillary would have been providing legal opinion, not her social, political, or personal beliefs.

            Paul your 14 word partial statement, I quoted above, is similar to to what Rand or Reince would issue on a potential opponent to confuse or mislead.

            I too was a “hawk” in the past, but no more. People can change over time. Let’s give Hillary a fair shake.

            1. Duane, you being a “hawk” also means I wouldn’t vote for you, but it has no impact on my desire to vote for Hillary. Also, saying that it is standard operating procedure when sitting on the board of a corporation to avoid publicly speaking out on your own principles may well be true, but isn’t indicative of the kind of leadership I want in a President. Finally, as far as Rand or Reince and my statement, if they want to attack her from the Left they might actually earn my vote. I am giving Hillary a fair shake by looking at her record and not that of her husband or the President she served under. Her record is one I find wanting, especially considering the only point you address is the Wal Mart question, which is only a very small part of my argument against her as a candidate.

              1. My point is that your broad, “half truth” statement cited in my reply is misleading and unfair,

                Your absolutism for political purity is revealed by, “…they(Rand or Reince) might actually earn my vote.” Are you really a Democrat?

                And regarding “the only point you address is the Wal Mart question…” I find it more informative to the readers to refute one “half truth” at a time or to only address the most important one.

  4. Markos must be getting the HillaryPac money, along with the Bloomberg money against guns. Now Markos is part of the establishment. In his “Crashing the Gate” book with Jerome the key was to be pro gun especially in states like Colorado. The book also ends with a potential challenger to Hillary who would be Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.

    1. Agree AJ, when a lot of us were fighting for a “public option” to BUY Medicare coverage to be included in the ACA, Markos folded on his support for the “public option.” The ACA without a public option was mostly just a wealth transfer to health insurance executives. It’s marginally better than the GOP’s “don’t get sick” plans, but it uses the IRS to FORCE the poor and the middle class to buy lousy coverage. Republicans are absolutely right. That’s an abuse of government power. Only a handful of Republicans in the House voted for ACA. House Dems had a lot of control over it. Markos gave cover to those “progressives” to vote for deeply faulted legislation.

      Part of the ACA legislation was to destroy “Medicare-for-all” as future competition for the health insurance oligopoly. They accomplished that by turning Medicare into welfare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/12/02/doctors-facing-a-24-pay-cut-in-both-medicare-and-medicaid-reimbursements/ Those cuts to Medicare reimbursements mean physicians don’t want patients with Medicare coverage. They can’t make any money. That forces the elderly back into the greedy arms of the health insurance oligopoly to buy decent coverage.

      1. John, I thought placing the mandate on the individual was a mistake too. Having a law where everyone has health insurance is different than having a law requiring each individual to purchase their own insurance. Requiring employers too pay for coverage is a different story.

        That said at the time the law was written it was the democratic lawmakers understanding that the states would accept the expanded medicaid funds and have state exchanges of their own. If we all lived in neighboring Minnesota we would all likely have a more favorable view of the ACA.

Comments are closed.