Skinner hadn't muct choice, really. He's a tool of the DNC and they have annointed hillary as their new 'idol'. SO, he does his best to annoce the new reign in a most benign way:
Skinner (60,203 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026498339
An Unabashedly Liberal Hillary Clinton
This is what we are going to have to put up with for the next 18 months. Ugh.
At least Skinner will eleminate at least half the swamp of anti-hillary DUmpmonkies.
MineralMan (71,525 posts)
1. There is so much more to being President than economic issues.
Hillary Clinton is clearly pointing out that she is deeply concerned with social issues in her video. But, we knew that, actually, even though we tend to forget such things at times.
The economy is a complex thing, and we live in a de facto corporate economy. No President can change that fact. Things like the Middle East, including Iran, exist. ISIS exists. Discord on an international basis exists. Again, such disputes between nations are not something a President can simply address and change. Our economic system is not going to change in any drastic way any time soon. We must deal with it as it exists and try to make it work better, but it's not going away.
Hillary Clinton has an outstanding record in the Senate with social issues. As Secretary of State, she did a great job of keeping the war cries down and making international issues less warlike. We can't dictate to other nations, and we shouldn't be doing that. Instead, we can only facilitate diplomacy, which appears to be Clinton's approach.
I'm embarrassed that so much time is being spent on silly arguments about logos, appearance, and other nonsensical issues here on DU. We can do much better than that, I think.
I'm not supporting any particular Democratic primary candidate at this point. I'll be watching to see who I'll be supporting in the General Election. That will be decided by the convention next year. I get one vote in my own primary. That's it. I'll decide on that vote much closer to that primary election day. Not right now.
MM knows the way the wind is blowing.
Dawgs (12,440 posts)
7. How about her voting for Bush's illegal war? Does that embarrass you?
Anything that Hillary has done in the past that doesn't fit the current view will be swept away and hidden.... much like a shit-load of e-mails...
MineralMan (71,525 posts)
14. That particular vote? No. Many Democrats I support
voted for it as well. When I look at that, I consider the situation that was in place at that time and the information that was available. Frankly, that vote is not a consideration for me in an election so many years later, given the information available at that time. You're free, of course to treat it as you choose to treat it. You asked for my opinion, and you have it.
There is much more to this race than that vote made well over a decade ago. This election is not about 2002. It is about the next 8 years. Think about that, not what happened 13 years ago. That's my recommendation.
The past doesn't matter. All that matters is electing Hillary.
MineralMan (71,525 posts)
45. I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning. Now, in 2015, I am looking ahead, not back. George W. Bush's ego and determination to go to war in Iraq was wrong. 58% of Democrats voted for the IWR. I didn't like that at the time. In retrospect, I imagine that almost all of that 58% regrets that vote. But it's 2015. Moving forward. That's my issue.
See, kids? That's how it's done.
quakerboy (11,523 posts)
186. Just a thought...past actions are important in how they effect the future.
There were a lot of people who knew at the time how terribly wrong following GWB to war was. Its bothersome that a person who should have been informed and acting carefully in the best interests of the country was unable to make that determination correctly.
But setting that aside, a person who voted against that war and regrets it may look more carefully in the future.
But a person who is fooled once and does not learn from it may be easily fooled again in the same way.
I wish I knew which it was. Does she regret her choice?
MineralMan (71,525 posts)
190. I'm quite sure she will have to address that. Don't you suppose that's true? I'll wait to see what she says.
Hillary won't address anything. She never has. Never will. The [D]s and the MSM cover for her just as they cover for Barry.
quakerboy (11,523 posts)
196. Extremely unlikely. The press certainly isn't interested in revisiting the issue, seeing as they showed even worse judgement than she did at the time.
Whoever comes to the front of the Republican clown show isn't going to challenge her on that issue. They are more likely to ask why she didn't take a gun and storm Benghazi with Bush than to point out that the Bush war was a massive **** up with no justification.
And, at this point, im not expecting her to have a significant challenge from the left, so theres noone to bring it to the front from that side.
RufusTFirefly (6,721 posts)
120. It was a sickening example of brazen political expediency
Those Democrats who voted "yes" knew the evidence was bullshit. However, they were afraid that the war would go quickly and well and that their "no" votes would extinguish any presidential aspirations.
In other words, in pursuit of their own selfish ambitions they were willing to gamble the lives of American soldiers, not to mention countless Iraqis.
So... are the DUmp monkiez saying Hillary new the war was a lie and went for it anyway for political points? And they support her in that? **** me.
priestly (48,204 posts)
169. You are so right.
The Code Pink women stated that they had discussed the progress of the international weapons inspection team with that team and that Saddam was cooperating. An April 2004 Vanity Fair article on the days and weeks preceding our invasion of Iraq tells the story in full and affirms that Saddam was fully cooperating and that the very few unauthorized weapons (some missiles that were a bit too long if I recall) were to be destroyed. Bush rushed us in over the objections of the French and the rest is history.
Another bit of history that emerges from that video is Hillary's recognition at the time of the vote that Bush was rushing our economy into a crisis by fighting a war while lowering taxes. That was true. I did a lot of research on the Bush administration in 2004. Our economy was in trouble as the dot.com bubble burst or at least no longer fueled our economy beginning in 1999 or 2000. Remember the Bush tax cuts -- the revision of the bankruptcy bill. The time frame for those efforts to "goose" the economy is a bit hazy to me, but I recall that we were already headed toward a disastrous economy in Spring of 2004.
So, Hillary recognized the impending peril to our economy already before the Iraq War had started. But what did she do about it? Did she organize Democratic senators to bargain with Bush to raise the tax money to pay for the war or not get the Democratic votes to support his war resolution? No way.
Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren and her organizing senators and other members of Congress to support her proposals to improve economic fairness in our country. And she actually succeeded in getting the creation of a consumer bureau.
Hillary was not a leader. She was a good follower and a never-rock-the-boater in the Senate. But no leader.
Elizabeth Warren, freshman senator just like Hillary, immediately charged forward, organizing votes for reform proposals. She is the leader. Now I hope that you for one will see why I so strongly urge that Elizabeth Warren, whether she wants to run or not, should be our candidate. Hillary makes a good senator. She is simply not a leader. It isn't in her personality. And that is not surprising. Bill was a leader although he lead in the wrong direction on a number of issues. Still, Bill was a guy who thought to get people together on issues and could get things done. Hillary is too rigid to be a leader.
Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are better presidential material than Hillary. It isn't really an insult against Hillary. It is mostly a matter of talent and where Hillary fits.
It would be unusual to have a married couple in which both spouses are strong leaders. That was not the case with Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. Eleanor was the conscience and took charge more than did Hillary during Bill's presidency. But Eleanor rose to the occasion. What is more her marriage with Franklin Roosevelt was quite rocky as we know.
Two strong leaders in a marriage or any relationship can make things rocky. And, by the way, I am a great admirer of both Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. I'm just talking about personalities.
Warren and Sanders... OMFG...
vlyons (856 posts)
59. How about moving on? Can you manage that?
It's time for you to stop regurgitating a past that has come and gone and focus on what we need to do now to deal with climate change, income inequality, universal healthcare, rebuilding our infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, getting the GOP out of women's reproductive decisions, and so much more. I'm tire of trolls like you, who add no value to the discussion. Get a grip.
Dawgs (12,440 posts)
63. Are you seriously telling me that I can't use her record to make a judgement?
It's the same shit we hear from Republicans about Bush's dismal record.
And, been her since 2004, so I'm one of the last people you should be calling a troll.
vlyons (856 posts)
114. so basically, you can't move on and you're not looking at her entire record. and I still think that you're a troll.
JDPriestly (48,204 posts)
74. It's a question of proof of judgment.
How can you trust a person to "deal with climate change, income inequality, universal healthcare, rebuilding our infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, getting the GOP out of women's reproductive decisions, and so much more" if that person showed bad judgment in dealing with a decision as momentous as the invasion of Iraq and a number of other issues on which Hillary showed bad judgment.
As I said above, somewhere out there is a Code Pink video in which women from Code Pink who had visited Iraq talked to Hillary Clinton about what they had seen there and told her that going into Iraq was wrong, a mistake. She left them in what in my opinion was a rude huff. It is that video that made me take a second look at Hillary. She was not good at listening to and dealing with ideas other than those set in her mind.
After watching that video, I did not feel and I do not feel now that Hillary has the ability to process information that displeases her or is inconvenient to her. She gets set in her mind as to right and wrong and is not as flexible in her thinking as she needs to be.
That is a very deep character trait.
Obama is, on the other hand, one who processes new ideas and information with interest and equanimity. It doesn't completely throw him off balance. Hence, under Obama (although I disagree with his choices for economic regulatory leaders and education leaders among other things), we have a new relationship with Cuba and South America, for the moment at least, internet neutrality, a functioning health care insurance system and many other policies like marriage equality, gender equality in the military, etc. that we would not have had under a president who thought less flexibly and rejected challenges to his thinking.
This is a matter of a character and personality defect in Hillary. It is shared by all, and I mean all of the potential Republican candidates.
None of this will matter. Hillary will get the DNC nod. You will all have to suck it up or take a tombstone.
MineralMan (71,525 posts)
25. Oh, she won't be quiet now.
Most recently, she was not in any public office. Before that, she was Secretary of State, which meant that she was doing the President's work, not her own. Now, she is a primary candidate for President. You can expect to hear her comments on many topics over the next few months.
What will she say about issues that concern you? I do not know. I suggest listening to what she does say, though.
It's not uncommon for people who do not hold public office to keep their silence about political issues. Now that she's an announced candidate, she'll be speaking on all significant issues. You can choose whether or not to believe what she says, of course.
As I said in my post, I'm not supporting any candidate during the primary campaign. I'll cast my vote on primary election day, based on who is running and what I think of their chances of winning. After that, I will be in full support of whoever gets the actual nomination at the convention. That's what I suggest for everyone, but some people will have favorites in the primary race. I hope they do not burn their bridges during that race by declaring that they won't support the Democratic nominee in the general election. That's not a productive thing to do and will not help any cause.
The primary campaign is just getting started. There will be much to listen to. That's what I'll be doing.
Fred Sanders (12,349 posts)
6. I believe Clinton will position herself as continuing on and building upon the legacy of the Peace President.And liberals should be completely behind the eventual nominee when it happens - Clinton is deserving of it more than others - and the current President as it now happens.
Fearless (15,345 posts)
41. The question is which version of her is the real one?
Yup.
