clinton vs. sanders your vote?

[Liza's Headband]

The second part of Clinton’s strategy will address inequality, a hot issue in progressive circles, although her focus will remain on the middle class rather than the poor. She will argue that vast concentrations of wealth in relatively few hands actually squelch economic growth, and that the current rules of the road tend to reward financial trading rather than manufacturing and other more productive activities. She will propose to expand on Obama’s high-income tax hikes, while also pushing measures to fight wage theft, raise the minimum wage, encourage profit-sharing for workers, and support collective bargaining by unions.

Funny enough, all economic concepts that she has immensely benefited from over the last several years, as her and her associates (and relatives) serve on the boards of numerous for-profit corporations and receive a wide range of financial "kickbacks" -- through the auspices of the foundation's sponsorships/grants -- for various state department approvals, decisions and overall influence between 2009 and 2013.

The only individual with no legitimate ties to Wall Street, Corporate America and Lobbyists, is Bernie Sanders. I would probably never vote for him but I am extremely proud of the 'Politics is Corrupt' message he is taking across this country. Public servants are in office to serve us... the people. Not their friends and political allies (see: Obama and the trade deal, Bush and the defense contractors, Clinton and the gun association). If I had faith in only one politician to help put an end to this corruption, it's Bernie Sanders. 

[HorseTears]

 

 

Hills takes the Subaru to the farmer's market every Sunday.  

[Plum]

"Taking the Subaru to the farmer's market" is actually one of the most Vermont phrases it's possible to write, funnily enough.

[HorseTears]

I feel like even Subaru Hills would vote for Bernie.  

[PalJoey]

Hillary presented her economic plan this morning at the New School in New York.

She will be the most progressive American president since Franklin Roosevelt.

 

MOTHER JONES: Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She's Not Jeb Bush, and She's a Lot Like Elizabeth Warren The Democratic frontrunner attacked her possible Republican opponent and laid out her economic vision for 2016.

 

It's not just the major banks, Clinton said, but the hedge funds and nebulous financial firms that constitute the shadow-banking sector that need to be regulated. “We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank," she said, referring to the financial regulation law. "Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky.”

[madbrian]

I support HRC and have every intention of donating to her campaign and voting for her.  But, based on that article, how do you make the leap to "She will be the most progressive American president since Franklin Roosevelt"?  Was there anything more substantive in her speech?

[PalJoey]

how do you make the leap to "She will be the most progressive American president since Franklin Roosevelt"?

 

Easy! She'll be more progressive than Obama, her husband, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy or Truman (or any of the Republicans), which will make her the most progressive president since Roosevelt.

[Liza's Headband]

There is no proof that she will be "progressive." Everyone thought the same of Obama, as well, and he was a complete failure with both Wall Street (no prosecutions) and international justice. In fact, Obama is amazingly responsible for more civilian deaths (5,000+) than George W. Bush (2,500+) through the expanded drone strike program since 2009. It is shocking how little the administration is criticized for its excessive use of illegal drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Obama was against our antics in the Middle East. Hillary was for it. She is more hawkish than Obama. She will not be "progressive." Especially when she is too busy paying back her crony donors from Wall Street. 

All of that being said, I give her credit for one novel economic idea that has never been discussed by any other candidate: tax incentives for corporations that will offer profit-sharing packages to its employees. I think that is actually a really great idea. 

[PalJoey]

I keep saying: AMERICANS WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A SOCIALIST JEW.

However a friend posted this...

[madbrian]

LBJ's resume includes Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and Medicare.  Again, I plan on voting for her, but I don't see her achieving anything like that.  There's nothing in her past to indicate as such, and while she may be tacking to the left in recent speeches, I just don't see her as a progressive POTUS.

[ErikJ972]

So in spite of what Clinton may have said in her speech today....

"Hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, an adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left.

Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks."

Financial adviser: Clinton won't push Glass-Steagall bank bill

[Liza's Headband]

But.... but... where's that progressivism that PJ was just carrying on about?!?! 

[Borstalboy]

Well.  If she gets nominated the right can put to use those flip-flops they had in storage from the Kerry campaign.

[PalJoey]

I don't believe Alan Blinder is speaking for Hillary. She hasn't decided on the Glass Steagall issue yet.

Either way--and I hope she restores it--she'll STILL be the most progressive president since Roosevelt!

[ErikJ972]

More progressive than Obama? Not very hard, but I doubt it. Especially since she's more John McCain that Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy.

Clinton speech reaction: 'Is that it?'

[ErikJ972]

"In essence, Hillary Clinton is asking America’s progressives to trust her. She is offering sentiment without specifics. For the voting bloc that does not have enough money to make campaign donations large enough to whisper in Hillary Clinton’s ear, that is not going to be enough."

Hillary Clinton Tells Progressives: Trust Me, Trust Me, Trust Me

[Liza's Headband]

Either way--and I hope she restores it--she'll STILL be the most progressive president since Roosevelt!

You are a rabid fanatic with blinders on. She is not "progressive." She is moderate, at best. Her voting record as a Senator speaks to this. 

Speaking of "progressive," is it progressive to evolve on a fundamental belief of marriage equality in less than ten years?

 

[Borstalboy]

I usually hate Gawker, but that article is so on point.  Hillary's attitude towards progressives seems to be to toss a placating verbal piece of scrap every now and then.  The problem is, we are too huge--and too wary--to be soothed by empty words.  She's running this campaign like it's 1996.

[CarlosAlberto]

Ugh. I hope she does not win. I cannot stand Hilary Clinton. She's such a hypocrite as she bashes Wall Street and cashes her Goldman Sachs checks.

[ErikJ972]

" She's running this campaign like it's 1996."

And that's why she is going to lose.

[madbrian]

"And that's why she is going to lose."

 

To whom?

[HorseTears]

Interesting breakdown from FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silvers' site, on the "invisible primary". FiveThirtyEight claims that political endorsements (from representatives, senators and governors) are the best indicators of a candidate's success during a Presidential primary.  

 

"In presidential primaries, endorsements have been among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail. So we’re keeping track."  The endorsements are weighted from most important (Governors) to least (Representatives).  Hillary currently has 243 endorsement points.  Bernie has zero.  

 

Jeb is leading the Repubs with 18 points.

[Liza's Headband]

Who cares about endorsements when we have the infamous PalJoey proclaiming her as the chosen one and apparently the most progressive President hopeful since FDR!! You know, just like Obama... Oh, wait. Never mind. 

[HorseTears]

I have no illusions of her being a true progressive, though I do think she will be a heck of a lot more progressive than a President Hillary Clinton of 2008 would have been.  She's also something that seems to rankle purists on both on the right and left - a skilled politician.  Yes, there's a bit of snake oil saleswoman involved in that process - but despite the cries of "BENGHAZI!" from nutjobs on the right, of all the announced, probable and possible Democratic candidates, I believe she would have chance of forming true Exec/Leg partnerships and actually moving forward on meaningful legislation.  She seemed to be well liked by her colleagues on both sides of the aisle in her Senate days.  

 

Bernie, I love, and, yes, his platform and views align more closely with my core beliefs and, yes, his gains in early polls and his big crowds have been impressive, but I'm still not convinced of his ability to go beyond this early buzz.  

 

Raising $15 million in small donations and drawing crowds of 10,000 in liberal environs like Madison certainly isn't nothing, but I'm also not sure it will add up to much in the end.  

 

I want a winner in 2016. 

[PalJoey]

"Speaking of "progressive," is it progressive to evolve on a fundamental belief of marriage equality in less than ten years?"

Yes, it is actually.

Next question

[HorseTears]

Oh, come on, people.  Get over the marriage thing.  Hillary lied when she said she wasn't in favor of marriage equality, just like Obama did because they're both politicians and know how to play the game.  No one "evolved".  We all know it.  It could have been political suicide to be in support of marriage equality in 2000-08 if you had any real national ambitions.  They did what they thought they had to get elected.  And, no, it didn't show courage, but there's gotta be some pragmatism in there.