I just watched Hillary’s Kickoff at New York’s Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Park and was deeply moved as she laid out her progressive vision to move our country forward economically, socially and politically. I share her vision and will dedicate my efforts to that purpose and look forward to a vigorous debate on the issues in the months ahead.
For those who missed it C-Span will repeat it tonight @ 8 pm.
Strength and Honor…Onward to Victory !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
Why was it inspiring, this speech by Centrist candidate Clinton, in which she makes noises about being a Progressive? By many measures, she is not progressive.
Why was it historic? Because it’s the first time a woman has attempted for the second time to win a major-party Presidential nomination? If she doesn’t make the White House, history will probably file her next to Adlai Stevenson.
I don’t doubt that you were deeply moved. For me, it will take more than campaign speeches. In Clinton’s case, it will take a lot more, given her record.
I’m an old man who is still inspired by idealism and wants to believe that the cynics are wrong about
this leader.
I know Secretary Clinton will never pass the progressive purity test amongst many of my liberal friends here on BMG. This is the same mindset that mocked me in 1968 for supporting Sen.Ed Muskie against the Left’s George McGovern because I believed he was the most ELECTABLE progressive (he was the sponsor of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts) who could have beat Nixon and ended the war in Vietnam.
I believe Clinton is the most ELECTABLE progressive that can beat the most dangerous Republican, conservative nominee — whoever that is.
I may be wrong because I always try to surround myself
with young politicos who are much smarter than I am. But one of the great gifts of aging is that it gives you perspective and a philosophical approach to the great arc of history and progress.
And so, yes, at the risk of sounding politically unsophisticated— I am inspired when I hear Secretary Clinton speak—because she speaks to me. And I believe she loves this country and the people of this country and wants to lead us all forward to a better place together.
And that, my friend, would truly be historic !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
You BELIEVE in her with all-caps.
I missed the ’68 campaigns because I was in Vietnam. I did not miss any of Clinton’s husband’s campaigns or administrations, or her own 2008 campaign. I also did not miss her votes for the Iraq war, Real ID, and the Patriot act. When I look over her Senate voting record, the other thing that strikes me is how many times that she didn’t even vote on progressive issues. You’ve got an uphill battle convincing me that Clinton is a progressive, or would implement more than token progressive policies.
If you look before Fall of 2007, she misses very few. I’m sure you can come up with better reasons than that to dislike her, as that is one of the more sophistic ones.
… as Orwell said, “[S]he wears the mask and [her] face grows to fit it”… I’m fairly certain Hillary Clinton started out as a progressive and, no doubt, remains with some progressive tendencies… but she’s spent so much time and effort on the mask that it has become indistinguishable from the face. And maybe she still thinks she can pull it off and reveal the true progressive underneath.
I think this is true of her husband also. I think they both started out thinking a centrist demeanor would allow them access and then, once granted that access, they would pull off the mask and progressive the dickens outta the joint. It’s a rather extreme version of condescending to both allies and enemies alike.
It’s also not unlike some projections made about the current POTUS by his fans, though, to his credit he never (far as I can tell), projected such himself…
trying to convince you Clinton is progressive. You don’t believe she is. Enough said.
But to be clear. I said I believe she is the most ELECTABLE progressive running for President.
Nothing you have said has altered my view on that political reality.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The On The Issues website details her statements and positions over the years which are on the whole decidedly progressive. Even I was surprised given how much noise has been made about it in the other direction. If you still can’t forgive her for a single vote like AUMF there is not a whole lot I can do about that.
There’s also a pretty simple objective test. She and Bernie Sanders were in Congress at the same time. How often did they vote in opposite ways? I suspect it is a lot less than people seem to be implying.
Among her unprogressive votes are far more than “a single vote like AUMF,” thank you very much. I gave you three examples off the top of my head. If you peruse her complete voting record, you’ll find more. The site you mentioned does not present that complete voting record.
“A” grade for listing the problems we are facing and a failing grade for offering any solutions. It’s like a contractor telling you that your roof is leaking, your furnace is failing, and your windows are drafty, he knows how it feels to shiver in the cold damp house and he wants you yo be warm and dry…..but he offers no specifics on how he plans to fix the roof, the furnace or the windows.
We’re in a mess? Tell us something we don’t already know. Tell us your plan to get out of the mess.
it’s going to take years to clean up the Republican Bush/Cheney MESS. Obama has made a good start but don’t kid yourself into thinking any candidate is going to wave a magic wand and make the MESS go away any time soon.
The campaign is just beginning. Why don’t we all take a deep breath, kick back, inhale and give the candidates a chance to make their case to the people. What’s the big rush ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Third Way centrism was given 8 years to fix it, and its 8 years in power in the 90s helped cause it (hello, bank deregulation).
Time to give a different ideology a try.
I’m not inclined to argue with success.
Not so good for those of us who remember better times.
didn’t matter anymore, and that one decision nearly caused the world’s economy to collapse.
We can’t look back at the 90s with rose colored glasses anymore. Its middle class success was mostly a mirage, fueled by people spending money they didn’t have and a tech bubble that burst almost as soon as Clinton left office.
And they mistook that largely accidental, built-on-a-house-of-cards success for some kind of genius understanding of the economy, resulting in some pretty terrible decisions that caused the Great Recession years later.
If we’re going to make Bush own the wars and disastrous tax cuts for the rich, then Clinton has to own bank deregulation. Fair is fair.
Maybe deregulation was right for those times. I think both Clintons are smart enough to recalibrate policies to suit the times and care enough about ordinary people to be motivated to do it. Any talk of somehow the economic success stemming from Clinton policies as somehow accidental is a co-opting of Republican talking points. We can and should do better than that.
Nothing — nothing — can be “right then” when it literally almost destroys the world wide economy a few short years later.
Not a single thing.
I’m sure the Clintons both wish they could rub a lamp and have made their bank deregulation efforts in the 90s disappear — Hillary would be a much stronger candidate today if that was the case.
But, unfortunately, that’s impossible.
Bill Clinton made a catastrophically terrible choice to pass banking deregulation back in the 90s. It’s consequences were predicted back then by numerous people, but the powers that be thought they were the smartest people in the universe and made our country fall all the harder during the Great Recession because of it.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t the President back then, so it’s not fair to blame her for what her husband did — and I don’t. But I don’t see her saying that we need to re-regulate the banks today, and she’s certainly not calling on breaking up all the Too Big To Fail banks.
No, it isn’t. Was growth in the 90s deeply tied to people in the middle class using credit like they hadn’t ever before? Yes. Was growth in the 90s deeply tied to a tech bubble that drastically overvalued tech companies? Yes.
That’s not a “Republican talking point,” and I’m not blaming Bill Clinton, either. Those things weren’t his fault, but those things are why we view the 90s as so great for the middle class — even though it was all, as we know now, built on a house of cards. We can’t blame Clinton for that, but we can’t credit him, either.
Bill Clinton deserves a lot of credit for his foreign affairs, running the government with a ton of competency, putting RBG on the SCOTUS, the way he represented our country here and abroad, his oratory prowess and the fact that he could balance the budget — but he deserves blame, too, for DADT and DOMA, for destroying welfare and for banking deregulation.
He’s the best President we had since Lyndon Johnson (IMO, anyway), but with the context of the years that have come since, it’s become clear that he’s only the best since Johnson because there have been so many big disappointments since then, dominated by Presidents who have practiced the failed policies of neoliberalism, and at least 8 years of sheer incompetency during the GWB era.
is the weak point in your argument. Earlier you said we can’t look at the 90s with rose-colored glasses. Those glasses also can’t give us the ability to see with 20/20 hindsight. Decisions that were made in the past can only be judged by the circumstances prevailing at the time they were made. Do you really think Bill Clinton is the kind of person or politician who would support something that he knew for certain in 20 years would harm the middle class that he championed?
You’ve fumbled the metaphor.
That’s irrelevant, if we’re not wearing them, isn’t it?
If Clinton did not foresee that deregulation of the banking industry would cause problems, it’s not because it was unforeseeable. Lots of people were warning us about the possible consequences. The reason those regulations were put in place are a big, huge, unavoidable episode in any account of 20th-Century history, and the forces that cause the 1929 financial crash didn’t magically disappear in the 1990s. It’s actually surprising how short a time it took for the bankers to completely screw the pooch, and Clinton was lucky that the inevitable collapse came after he’d left office. That lets people think he was some kind of wise man who created a strong economy. He didn’t; the damage he did to the economic house’s foundation just took a few years to cause its collapse.
This is all perfectly clear in hindsight if you take off those pink glasses. You don’t have to take my word for it — Elizabeth Warren has explained it all for you.
…so I have neither rose-colored or 20/20 hindsight. What I do have is my recollection of the times backed by the relevant statistics.
Hillary Clinton made absolutely clear in her announcement speech that she is preserving and expanding the Obama coalition rather than retreating to the triangulation of the past. Obama’s campaign, and Warren’s traction in the party, has permanently moved our party left. Her advisors are all Obama hands or folks that were always on the left wing of the Clinton administration. She directly appealed to labor activists, LGBT activists, civil rights activists, Latino activists, and women activists. She directly put ending unsustainable income inequality on the table. This will be an activist party. Hers will be an activist Presidency leading an activist government-one focused on finishing the circle and completing the work laid down by the foundations of every Democratic president that came before her.
Is there space to Hillary’s left in this primary? Absolutely. It is why it is essential that Bernie Sanders continues to run, continues to make mainstream media appearances, is assured a voice in the debates, and continues to start gaining on the frontrunner in key contests and fundraising. This will be a real contest, not a coronation. Bernie’s presence on the campaign trail and Warren’s leadership in the Senate is forcing our party and it’s frontrunner to move left. This should be embraced-not condemned. I am still in Bernie’s corner for the primary, but I am absolutely convinced Hillary is ready to fight for the grassroots of the party since she recognizes it is her only viable path to the White House.
But I’ll believe that she’s “ready to fight for the grassroots of the party” when she asks Ron Wyden and Maria Cantwell and the rest of the Senate Democrats who voted in favor of fast-track authority for TPP to hold the line against it when the Republicans in the House send it back to the Senate without trade adjustment assistance. I know it’s a big ask, since it would require that she publicly break with Obama on the issue. But she’s the presumptive incoming leader of the party, and if she won’t stand with labor and environmental interests on something this vital, I’m not sure what cause we’d have to trust her to fight for the grassroots in any other situation. It’s easy to be a fighter when it’s not costing you anything. Leadership is when it might cost you something and you do it anyway.
I’d like to think that she’ll be there for us on this. (Or that if she’s not, it will be because she knows for an absolute fact that TPA is going down without there being any need for her to act.) But I’m pessimistic about it, based on her performance over the past week. Mind you, I’ll be very happy to turn out to be wrong.
I think if we want to have an issues based comparison of the candidates, that is where I would turn. Sanders has been a consistent opponent of “free” trade agreements his entire congressional career, and he opposed repealing Glass-Steagall. It is very difficult to see how Hillary can continue to have the donor base she has and take the positions Sanders has taken. It’s why having a clean money candidate who doesn’t give a shit about the polls, who he pisses off, or how to raise money is such a wonderful thing. And as ryepower pointed out, that’s the exact kind of combination that got McCain a NH upset against the Bush dynasty.
Particularly in the primary, because the big-money people will want to back a winner and because even if she came out strongly against doing TPP without some major changes to the deal (losing ISDS, strengthening environmental protections, etc.), and against fast track authority before those changes were made and verified, she’s still a better fit for Wall Street interests than the competition.
But I also strongly suspect that for Clinton, as for Obama, this is less about trade per se and more about perceived national security interests, and trying to build bulwarks to protect U.S. power as China asserts its growing power. I think she and Obama have their priorities dead wrong on this one, which is why I keep hammering on it here: I think that we have a lot less time than the national-security analysis presumes on the interrelated crises of climate change and increasing plutocratic control of this country (and others). But on the assumption that she sees it the other way round (and without that assumption, her position doesn’t make a lot of sense that I can see), the fact that her donor base might give her maneuvering room wouldn’t matter. She’s still going to back TPP, because under this theory she really believes we need to do it no matter what’s in the bloody thing.
It’s of a package with what makes me nervous about her in general. It’s of a piece with things like the Iraq war vote and her decision to go along with the early-2000s bankruptcy legislation that Warren tried to warn everyone against. She’s a very smart woman and a tough fighter, and I’d love to see her in the White House facing down the GOP — up to a point, and that point is where I wish I thought I could trust her judgment.
The tide is moving in her direction. So she’ll be vague and careful. Who on the Republican side is going to beat her? I just don’t see anyone there catching the imagination of the voting public. She gets Dems of course, adds people of color, urban voters, and picks up women from the middle. It’s 51% at least, and way more than 270 electoral votes.
the capital letters?
eom
…except for one time he forgot and I ribbed him about it.
confusing, distracting, difficult to read, off-putting, and frequently offensive to people not familiar with the author because they think they’re being yelled at.
I respect Fred, but the all caps make it much more difficult to read him and frequently causes problems in the comments — both confusion and often offending people.
Fred — your posts would be dramatically better by ditching the all caps.
I say that with all respect.
it’s standard on his posts. we’re just conforming to post policy.
how did that work out ?
If anyone here has a better idea than a populist, progressive fix I’m all ears. But I’m not hearing it.
Am I missing something ? Hello ? Bueler ? Bueler ?
Crickets. The silence is deafening.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
P.S. CAPS ARE MY TRADEMARK. IT’S JUST THAT GROWING UP WITH 10 SIBLINGS I HAD TO SPEAK UP IN ORDER TO BE HEARD.
LOL 🙂
Ms Clinton’s centrism is not the only alternative to trickle-down economics. In many respects, it is indistinguishable from that disastrous program, and her husband’s administration did little to reverse that. You’re missing that your champion is not who you think she is.
PS: You do not need to shout to be heard here.
shouting to people when you start to talk with them is your trademark. You do understand that on the internet, ALL CAPS is the equivalent of shouting, right?
I grew up in a big ethnic family also. Shouting was put out of style when we each turned four or five.
And I am not LOL.
n/t
I am a Sanders supporter for the primary, and I am actually encouraged that he has exceeded my expectations of his campaign so far and may even give Clinton a real fight in NH and IA. Absolutely there is no reason to support Clinton in the primary if you think, as I do, that Sanders or another alternative is a better candidate.
What is worth celebrating though is that she has already moved substantially to her husband’s left on criminal justice matters, to Obama’s left on economic matters, and the party has now put marriage equality in stone as a must for any aspiring nominee, as choice already is. Two issues that were once the province of fringe leftist candidates. Even McGovern couldn’t endorse Roe v Wade and still got branded the abortion candidate. No Democratic nominee embraced gay rights until Bill Clinton in 92′, who quickly backpedaled due to political pressure.
Was she a centrist opportunist because that was how she ditched the women’s lib/liberal radical label the right and mainstream media inflicted upon her back in the 90s? Was she always a real liberal at heart? Those are questions I suspect this campaign will answer. Either the politics of our era, Hillary finally being Hillary, or both, have contributed to her embracing a far more liberal program than anyone could have anticipated. There will be no Sistah Souljah’ moments this election. And I can celebrate that, even if I trust that Bernie has been far more consistent and closer to where I want the party to be on these issues.
I don’t think campaigns function that way. Certainly, Obama’s first run left a lot of us thinking we knew some answers that we did not, in fact, know. Clinton will say the things she thinks will win her the nomination and election, just as he did. We won’t know which of them she is willing to push for unless she wins both contests.
It is undeniable that she is running a significantly more progressive and populist campaign than she did in 2008, and that on many economic issues, she is running to Obama’s left. And on social issues the victory of the progressive wing of the party is complete and final. Whether this is the result of the candidate meeting the party or the party meeting the candidate is less relevant to me. Either way, it’s Dean’s party that will nominate her-not the other way around as it was in 2004.
I think it might be more accurate to say that she is running to the slight left of where Obama governs from, but not to the left of his campaign rhetoric of either of his campaigns. I think it might have been you who pointed out that Obama campaigned against trade deals like the TPP, while now he wants to make that his legacy. Let’s also consider his talk about war and personal privacy when he first ran. That stuff went out the window pretty quickly after he took office.
Let’s take all campaign comments with a healthy dose of salt. Hillary is not a newly re-minted progressive. She is just the candidate we are stuck with.
I too was more of an economic centrist in the 1990s and continue to believe that Clinton’s policies were right for the times and the evidence bears that out. Two decades later I am much more of a New Dealer because I believe such policies are right for THESE times. That does not make the positions I held then or the ones I hold now illegitimate or insincere.
by President Clinton in the late 90’s was wrong and I said so at the time. I don’t think Senator Clinton was in office then so I hold her harmless on that issue.
I will stand corrected if wrong but I believe she supports the Dodd-Frank law regulating Wall Street and the re-instatement of Glass-Steagal.
To your larger point referencing President’s Clinton record (1992-2000). If Secretary Clinton runs away from
her husband’s record the way Al Gore did in 2000 then it will spell doom for her, the party, and the country in
2016.
I did not hear Hillary abandon her husband’s record OR President Obama’s record at her kickoff. Rather, she proudly embraced their accomplishments and pledged to build on them going forward.
Contrast that with Jeb’s rollout. Not only was his brother and father not there — he never once mentioned their records at all.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
were not such a total shit about Wall Street during her career in the Senate, her current refusal to take a detailed stand on most issues or appointments dealing with Wall Street, and her craven acceptance of Wall Street money to fund her campaigns, she might have a scintilla of credibility on financial regulation. see https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019 for the campaign donation roster
But her life is the opposite of “if.” Her life is all about sucking up to the rich, gaining financially from it, mouthing empty platitudes about being with “us” (as Reich noted, lacking anything resembling a real policy proposal) and waiting for the rest of us to accept her as the lesser of two evils in Nov 2016.
I anticipate voting for her but it will suck in two years when we are all kicking dirt because she is fucking us with her appointees to Treasury, the SEC, the USTR office and every other important financial policy making body. Remember that Sen Warren was able to derail Antonio Weiss’ appointment at Treasury but he still got in the back door by gaining the “counsel” position that did not require Senate approval, and he was the best of the Obama Wall Streeters.
Your faith in Hillary based on the notion that she was not responsible for what Bill did ignores what she has both done, and failed to do. Tell us, please, where she stands on the TPP for example.
naive, but I think people–even those in politics–can and do change. The 1990s were a particularly ugly time in this country, but times and people change. I’m sure she has played the game as she learned it, but the game has changed. Hillary is smart enough to know that. I’m optimistic that she has changed with it. How much she has changed is and will continue to change will be open to debate for the rest of the campaign.
I’m not committing to a candidate at this point, though I think we’re all committed to Hillary in the end. I’m debating how much to support Sanders. He’s a better candidate than Don Berwick, who I liked, but who changed nothing for the better.
that politicians can change their position and they are to be applauded when they do so against their base, but I am afraid that in this case it is the contrary. Hillary is saying what she wants progressives to hear but fear there is no change in how she will govern differently than her long history demonstrates.
…to prove to you that she means what she says? Are you a mind-reader? I for one am quite comfortable with her history.
far to the Left without following it up with actions along the same lines.
I don’t think she is saying what progressives want to hear, at least at the moment. She’s very good at sounding as if she were — and I say that with genuine admiration, and don’t mean it as a slam — but when you look at what she’s said about trade promotion authority (which I keep bringing up because it’s what I’m working on at the moment, so it’s where I’m familiar with everyone’s statements), it’s by no means the big split with Obama that some press outlets were treating it as. She has a position, it’s not the position of the progressive base, and she’s sticking to it despite a lot of pressure.
I wish she would change her position on this set of issues, particularly at this moment when it might do some actual good. But the fact that she isn’t may at least be an indication that she’s committed to the more progressive positions that she has taken on other issues.
How’d that work out for Larry Summers again? What about Antonio Weiss? She will block bad appointees even hold the good ones to the fire.
forget that, not at all, thanks and if you go back and re-read my post you will see I mentioned Antonio Weiss, about whom I wrote here quite a bit in the past. Thanks for your mistaken assumptions about what I know/remember.
Tell me how I did not mention Warren’s opposition to Weiss, or his backdoor appointment. You were wrong in your post so just admit it instead of downrating me because of your reading comprehension failure. My comment included :
Remember that Sen Warren was able to derail Antonio Weiss’ appointment at Treasury but he still got in the back door by gaining the “counsel” position that did not require Senate approval, and he was the best of the Obama Wall Streeters.
You are correct. I still don’t understand why you can’t say, “Actually, I did mention that Warren blocked Weiss and that he got into the department anyway. Go back and re-read.” Full stop.
The “Thanks for your mistaken assumptions about what I know/remember” is entirely unnecessary and, from what I’ve seen, you direct this kind of snark primarily at one poster. I agree with you on the substance but don’t see the need for the nastiness. Did he steal your lunch money?
was “You forget the next President will have Sen. Warren to contend with.” I forgot nothing, clearly wrote about it in plain English and was insulted by the notion that I forgot anything.
I have uprated him when I think he deserves it but when he makes up shit, I will point it out. You are correct that I have called him out on a few instances but that is because he is one of three people here who pretend they know what others are thinking.
It seems you’re taking the words more personally than is warranted. I don’t believe it was intended as a literal suggestion that you don’t know anything or forgot anything. More of a “let’s not forget that..” Sure, words have meanings but still…
Your knowledge and perspective are valuable and it would be better not to have what you have to say overshadowed by personal disputes. Again, just my impression.
I have never seen you claim to know what someone else thinks or remembers, even though your posts are sometimes sharp, in a way that I greatly appreciate. Truly. This is not the case with the kid who still thinks he is the smartest boy in the class.
Thank you.
And I was arguing she has been rather deft and effective and derailing these appointments. I trust that she will continue to be the good cop to any Wall Street Dem bad cops that happen to be in the next White House in whatever capacity. We can feel free to disagree over that without calling each other names. Once again you are choosing to read in an intended insult where there was none. I got no beef with you.
what I forgot. You are not close to smart enough to know what I think or forget.
Claiming “I got no beef with you” after you have insulted a man does not cut it in real life.
Obviously tonality is lost on the internet but really it was more of a “don’t forget Liz has our backs” kind of sentiment not an accusation, threat or insult. If we could edit our comments I’d take out the Weiss line since you did mention it. And I completely agree with you that Warren won’t be enough, we need a Senate full of her and a White House that follows her lead. On the merits, the politics and the policy we agree. On semantics I’ll just have to be a lot clearer replying to you.
that telling people what they think or forget is an insult. What part of this don’t you understand?
Well, you can forget your troubles with those Imperial slugs. I told you I’d outrun ’em.’-Han Solo
That the context of ‘you forget’. Truly a friendly, ‘don’t feel bad we have a great Senator’, in regards to your rightful despondency over Democrats consistently fucking over their own.
just acknowledge it
I’m sorry. Already apologized, but I will do so again. Have a good day sir.
This is the first time you are apologizing. But thanks, finally.
Why can’t we just get along?
Asked and answered.
Wall Street money is more understandable for her than maybe for others.
…and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, as well as “welfare reform”. It’s hard to see the Clinton administration as anything but a continuation of the Reagan-Bush era.
As someone who works in radio, it particularly galls me that Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Telecommunications “Reform” Act which ruined local radio in much of the country.
…increases in the minimum wage, the longest sustained economic expansion in our history, low unemployment, low inflation, 22 million new jobs, relatively peaceful world.
after trashing her is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
that your comment is directed at me. So I suggest that you learn the meaning of the words disingenuous and hypocritical, and then go back and read the part where I wrote I will be voting for her as the lesser of two evils.
If you want to start calling me names like disingenuous and hypocritical, then maybe you should remove yourself from BMG for violating the rules of civility this site espouses. Or just STFU.
If you tell everyone with misgivings about Hillary not to vote for her, you may just find you’ve chased away more than half the Democratic base.
It’s perfectly reasonable to have misgivings – as I certainly do – and wish for a better option, but be resigned to voting for her if, as we expect, she is the nominee because Supreme Court, etc., etc.
There is wisdom in what you say. The irony in all this is that my post was meant to inform my BMG friends that I had made my decision and was all in for Hillary by informing them of her kickoff announcement. Then, oy vey, all hell broke loose.
It was never my intention to insult those who have misgivings about her. JEESCH 1 EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME ! How stupid would that be. I have always practiced politics by the age-old adage : ‘ Never shit on the same plate you eat off of.’ How could we ever appeal for post-primary support after trashing each other and our candidates ?
That said, once I get behind my candidate I will defend her with fierce loyalty and will never remain silent when their honor has been violated.
Anyway, thank you for your advice and I hope to earn your consideration moving forward.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
that vice pays to virtue.” ANON
Why not just be honest and admit you’re a conservative
and stop pretending to be some kind of faux progressive.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
For a staunch supporter of Clinton to accuse someone else here — particularly someone who has BD’s posting history — of not being a progressive is really ironic. I note that instead of addressing my difficulty seeing Clinton as a progressive, Fred just continues to call her one. Not convincing, buddy.
pretending to be FOX News when the truth is they are the conservative Republican propaganda organ of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ HILLARY CLINTON
Fred Rich LaRiccia
you won’t support Hillary because you think her husband’s record was a conservative continuation of Reagan/Bush and you think Hillary is really a conservative masquerading as a liberal just to win votes ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
you disrespect Secretary Clinton by slandering her as a ‘total shit’ then have the gall to tell me to STFU for violating BMG rules for civility for calling you out as a hypocrite ?
Dude, you have some serious issues going on. I’ve been eating bullies like you for breakfast all my life.
Bring it on. There’s nothing I like better than a good fight.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Insulting BMG members is off limits if I understand the rules. Calling out politicians, if done by fact, is normal. I criticized her Hillariness, but I did not criticize you.
We actually have met, often, a decade ago.If you think you eat bullies, you are welcome to come to any one of the “post conflict zones” where I work. I might even lend you some body armor, so don’t try to play tough guy with me.
Take a chill pill.
she told me to tell you that you can take your vote for her as the ‘lesser of two evils’ and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Ms Clinton said that? I don’t believe you.
you didn’t criticize me when you told me to STFU ? Really. Yet I ‘insulted’ you by calling you a hypocrite for trashing our former First Lady as a ‘total shit’ after claiming you would begrudgingly vote for her as the ‘lesser of two evils’.
I smell a rat. I don’t know you because you hide behind the mask of anonymity yet you claim we met a decade ago.
I openly sign my name and stand behind every word I write.
And yes, I do eat bullies and I don’t know what a ‘post conflict zone’ is. Do you have something against the English language ?
As for playing tough guy, lending me some body armor and taking a chill pill — go blow it out your….nose.
Oh,and you have a nice day, too.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
P.S. And Kirth, it’s true. Just as Hillary talks to Eleanor Roosevelt — guess what ? I talk with Hillary all the time. And she really did tell me to tell all of her detractors, puke trolls, Koch shills and DINO’s to take their
‘lesser of two evil votes’ and shove it up their ass.
I was so embarrassed at her naughty language that I blushed !
P.P.S. What is ORLY ?
And I still don’t believe you. If I were to put it on the level of your comments to TBD, I’d say you’re a liar. Since you’re obviously not willing to have an actual discussion without insulting people who disagree with you, why don’t you find someplace where everybody does that?
The words “post conflict zone” is the internationally recognized phrase that describes countries and regions where active combat has officially ceased as a result of a political agreement, but where everyone is still armed to the teeth and the killing continues at a lower level. Mostly that means you keep the body armor close at hand but don’t wear it all day. When it is really bad, like it was when I was in Iraq during the war, you sat on your helmet when you were driving to protect against IEDs your car might ride over.
At the moment I am living in luxury, with nightly cocktails and gourmet food, in a large international capital, after leaving one of those post conflict zones. Yet even here, my dinner date for tonight cancelled on me as she said that it was not safe for her. You see, she is a native ethnic but Catholic, so she looks like everyone else, which means that she might be grabbed by the local religious police for violating the rules of Ramadan (it began today at sunrise). Yup, eating in public during the day will get her arrested. Safe for a white guy like me, but unsafe for a woman who looks like she might be Muslim. That is the way much of the world lives and it is where I often work.
Do you still want to challenge me with phrases like “I’ve been eating bullies like you for breakfast all my life.”
Double giggle.
but politics is hardball— not beanbag. You slander my candidate or lie about her record and I’m gonna call you out. See Christopher’s comments above on the Clinton record.
As to my channeling Hillary as she channels Eleanor — it was a joke, dude. Lighten up. It’s gonna be a long campaign and we’re all in for a bumpy ride so fasten your seatbelts.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
PEACE, PROSPERITY, and PROGRESS.
How do ya like them apples? Now go ahead and tell me I’m wrong.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
You’re wrong.
Feel better?
sign of nothing going on when we argue about candidates 9 months before the primary.
The Clinton argument is that we won’t get progressive ends enacted without fighting fire with fire and playing within the existing campaign structure-big money donors, compromise with allied corporate figures, and SuperPacs to beat the same kinds of forces on the right.
The Sanders argument is that the existing campaign structure itself is essentially rigged beyond repair to ensure that corporate forces win and progressive ends fail, and that only a massive grassroots campaign can beat it back inspired by the right kind of campaign that really engages all of the 99%, including the 40-50% that routinely don’t vote, to come out and get their voices heard.
Existing means to change the ends vs. changing the means to change the ends.
I am comfortable with this debate and think it will be healthy for the primary and the party. In the event Sanders wins the nomination, it will be a high risk high reward general campaign. Are Americans, including a substantial number of current non-voters, willing to vote in numbers large enough to offset a massive spending deficit? The risk is a corporate Republican in office appointing Ginsberg and Kennedy’s replacement, the reward is a real end to dark money buying the elections.
With Clinton it’s a lower risk lower reward campaign. Matching the GOP dollar for dollar to get our base to show up and beat their base to ensure a liberal majority on the Court, a steadier hand in foreign policy, and a committed social progressive with the executive order and veto pen while we incrementally lurch towards greater progress. Defend our gains or secure our future? Both viable and valid strategies worth debating.
names. I like your way better.