Hilary Clinton: The Next Democratic Presidential Nominee?

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-24 05:35pm

Joe wrote: You are, however, partially correct; in some areas unrelated specifically to financial reporting (such as labor and environmental regulation), America's regulations are indeed less stringent than the rest of the developed world.

Yeah, the fact that (IIRC from that thread with Nitram bitching about pay) someone on the base rate of unemployment benefits in Australia still gets about the same amount as someone on minimum wage in the US is kind of telling.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2006-01-24 05:36pm

Ghetto Edit:

He's also the Moses candidate. If the Democrats fail to recapture the Presidency, this man could have pretty much any position he wants assuming he kept his hands clean during the Primaries and campaigns.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-01-24 06:14pm

I wonder how many people who think Hillary Clinton is a socialist would actually recognize a real socialist if one walked up to them and started collectivizing stuff? Probably not, given that the same people who think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist and dislike her for it are fervent supporters of the state of Israel.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-24 06:33pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder how many people who think Hillary Clinton is a socialist would actually recognize a real socialist if one walked up to them and started collectivizing stuff? Probably not, given that the same people who think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist and dislike her for it are fervent supporters of the state of Israel.

Does it matter what the definition of 'socialist' is in other places are, if in the areana she wants/is expected to run in. sees those postitions as socialist?

I tire of people constantly pointing out the gap between USA liberals/conservatives and European liberals/conservatives right along with US version of socialists and Europe socialists. We get it, doesn't matter.

Perception is fact in politics whether you're in Canada or the US or Europe. Hillary Clinton's views on some issues are the US version of extreme liberal and in some cases the US version of socialist. It doesn't matter if a bunch of Prague socialists would consider her a right wing nut job in the captial of the Czech Republic. She would (presumabley) be running over here in the US where the political scheme is skewed to the right.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-01-24 06:47pm

As a general note if theDNC was smart what they'd do is go back a candidate such as a resugent Harry Reid or perhaps a governor like maybe Bill Richardson who could keep southern states (paticualrly border states or states with immigration issues like...Florida) as the nominee then have Hilary as the VP candidate to shore up support amongst the liberal base of the party.

SecondToDie · Post by **SecondToDie** » 2006-01-24 06:52pm

Plekhanov wrote:What the hell, how do you figure shes a 'radical feminist'?

She supports government-paid abortion on demand, comparable worth schemes, affirmative action and quotas, and spouts out pretty much every radical feminist myth.

Like wise how do you figure she's a socialist?

Okay, I guess calling her a socialist is slight hyperbole, but she is definitely close to being a socialist. She supports more gun control laws, the creation of a national healthcare system, and other unconstitutional expansions of the federal government.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-01-24 06:58pm

Knife wrote:Does it matter what the definition of 'socialist' is in other places are, if in the areana she wants/is expected to run in. sees those postitions as socialist?

I tire of people constantly pointing out the gap between USA liberals/conservatives and European liberals/conservatives right along with US version of socialists and Europe socialists. We get it, doesn't matter.

Perception is fact in politics whether you're in Canada or the US or Europe. Hillary Clinton's views on some issues are the US version of extreme liberal and in some cases the US version of socialist. It doesn't matter if a bunch of Prague socialists would consider her a right wing nut job in the captial of the Czech Republic. She would (presumabley) be running over here in the US where the political scheme is skewed to the right.

My point is that they don't actually recognize what a real socialist is. Israel's politics are vastly more socialist in virtual every way, hell, they organize alot of their farming into actual communes (kibbutz), but people who'd label Clinton a socialist are all about Israel.

The fact is that no matter where you are in the world, be it the US or Europe or anywhere, Hillary Clinton cannot possibly be accurately labelled a socialist because politically she is far to the right of actual socialists on most scales. People call her such because it's a boogieman word, not because it's her actual position, in much the same way people throw the word "fascist" around..

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-24 07:00pm

SecondToDie wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:What the hell, how do you figure shes a 'radical feminist'?
She supports government-paid abortion on demand, comparable worth schemes, affirmative action and quotas, and spouts out pretty much every radical feminist myth.

Please: define "radical feminist", provide examples of these radical feminist myths, and provide evidence of Hillary Clinton "spouting" them.

Like wise how do you figure she's a socialist?
Okay, I guess calling her a socialist is slight hyperbole, but she is definitely close to being a socialist. She supports more gun control laws, the creation of a national healthcare system, and other unconstitutional expansions of the federal government.

How is socialized healthcare unconstitutional?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-01-24 07:04pm

It depends on who the Republicans run. If they run some neo-conservative prick, as they're bound to do these days, of course I'll vote for Hillary. I may not like her stances on videogame censorship, but universal healthcare appeals to me, as does having a Clinton without a penis in office.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:05pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder how many people who think Hillary Clinton is a socialist would actually recognize a real socialist if one walked up to them and started collectivizing stuff? Probably not, given that the same people who think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist and dislike her for it are fervent supporters of the state of Israel.

THis is but a snip...

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Hmmmm sounds a bit fishy

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-24 07:08pm

theski wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder how many people who think Hillary Clinton is a socialist would actually recognize a real socialist if one walked up to them and started collectivizing stuff? Probably not, given that the same people who think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist and dislike her for it are fervent supporters of the state of Israel.
THis is but a snip...

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hmmmm sounds a bit fishy

So in your view, removing tax cuts(During a period of record deficits) to fund the existing social programs is 'socialist'.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:10pm

Sen Clintons ratings.. from both sides....

First from the Repubs..

The American Conservative Union gave Clinton a zero for her 2004 Senate votes. Her career ACU rating is just 9. Among other things, Clinton opposed a bill to criminalize the injury or death of a fetus during a violent offense. She also favored hiking the top tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent and spurned legislation to promote testing and deployment of a missile defense shield.

For her 2004 Senate votes, the National Taxpayer’s Union gave Clinton an 11 percent rating — an F.

In addition, NTU’s Bill Tally for the 108th Congress revealed that Clinton is the Senate’s second biggest spender, right behind Jon Corzine (D., N.J.). She sponsored or cosponsored 211 bills to boost expenditures and only three to curb outlays. Were they all enacted, new federal spending would have jumped $378.2 billion annually.

“That’s the largest number of bills to increase spending supported by any Senator,” says NTU’s Pete Sepp. “Corzine would have spent more money annually ($440.7 billion), but he backed fewer pieces of legislation than did Hillary Clinton.”

Clinton’s 2004 votes scored her 8 percent approval from Citizens Against Government Waste, matching her 8 percent lifetime rating.

“Hillary Clinton’s 2004 rating, the 19th worst in the entire Senate, was far below average for a Senate Democrat,” according to CAGW president Tom Schatz. “Senate Democrats had an average rating of 16 percent in 2004 and 19 percent lifetime. The entire Senate’s average rating in 2004 was 40 percent.” CAGW’s complete 2004 ratings will be released later this month.

Clinton and New York’s senior Democratic senator, Charles Schumer, were CAGW’s “Porkers of the Month” last February for fighting President Bush’s proposed reforms of the Community Development Block Grant Program. While Clinton called it “a lifeline for many individuals already struggling to make ends meet,” the administration has criticized its “unclear purpose, loose targeting requirements, and lack of results.” These grants included $25,000 to help construct a music conservatory and $500,000 for “streetscape improvements” — both in Westchester, one of America’s poshest counties.

The American Security Council, a conservative foreign-policy organization, gave Clinton a 20 for her record in the 108th Congress. Her votes to shift $5.03 billion from Iraqi reconstruction to domestic programs and to strike research funds on a nuclear “bunker buster” weapon, among others, violated ASC’s credo: “Peace through strength.”

and from the Dems..

Americans for Democratic Action calls its ratings “the standard measure of political liberalism.” The April 2005 ADA Today awarded Clinton a 95 rating for opposing nearly all of the “vile reactionary projects that this extremist regime raised before Congress this past year.”

For her 2003 votes, Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Group gave Clinton a 95 percent rating, exceeding her 87-percent career average.

Clinton earned a 100 percent rating for 2004 from AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the bureaucrats’ union. This matched her perfect career record for advancing the agenda of government workers.

Clinton scored a 100 percent rating for 2004 from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the former National Abortion Rights Action League. It applauded Clinton for opposing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. As its website explains: “The legislation would recognize the ‘unborn child’ as a seperate [sic] victim when a pregnant woman is assualted [sic] or killed.”

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:12pm

SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder how many people who think Hillary Clinton is a socialist would actually recognize a real socialist if one walked up to them and started collectivizing stuff? Probably not, given that the same people who think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist and dislike her for it are fervent supporters of the state of Israel.
THis is but a snip...

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hmmmm sounds a bit fishy
So in your view, removing tax cuts(During a period of record deficits) to fund the existing social programs is 'socialist'.

Nope but the bold does sound a bit "Distribute the Wealth" don't you think.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-24 07:13pm

theski wrote:Nope but the bold does sound a bit "Distribute the Wealth" don't you think.

So "distribute the wealth" for the common good is a bad idea?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-24 07:15pm

theski wrote:Nope but the bold does sound a bit "Distribute the Wealth" don't you think.

No, it sounds like 'fund the government programs you have'.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:15pm

Surlethe wrote:
theski wrote:Nope but the bold does sound a bit "Distribute the Wealth" don't you think.
So "distribute the wealth" for the common good is a bad idea?

If I earned that money .. Yes it is...and we alll have our limits on what we think the Government should take

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:17pm

SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:Nope but the bold does sound a bit "Distribute the Wealth" don't you think.
No, it sounds like 'fund the government programs you have'.

I will give you, that some of the buget cuts should be moved to other pork... but Gov cannot continue to grow.. I blame Bush for losing the Fiscal conservatives like myself...

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-01-24 07:17pm

The Democrats running Hillary Clinton sounds like another four years of Republican Presidency. There's simply too much ill will towards her in the U.S., and Kerry's candidacy proved that "I'm not Bush" is not a winning strategy.

If they run Hillary, I will write myself in, photocopy it, send the photocopy to the DNC, and then post the picture here (Go go mail-in voting!) because the Democrats will have demonstrated that they are too stupid to earn my vote.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-24 07:22pm

theski wrote:I will give you, that some of the buget cuts should be moved to other pork... but Gov cannot continue to grow.. I blame Bush for losing the Fiscal conservatives like myself...

Well then, the quote you cited and made such a farcical fuss about isn't government growth. It's simply keeping the money they collected in the first place to actually pay the bills they're running up.

Novel idea, I know.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:24pm

SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:I will give you, that some of the buget cuts should be moved to other pork... but Gov cannot continue to grow.. I blame Bush for losing the Fiscal conservatives like myself...
Well then, the quote you cited and made such a farcical fuss about isn't government growth. It's simply keeping the money they collected in the first place to actually pay the bills they're running up.

Novel idea, I know.

Its all in the words.... then she should have said that ...but she didn't. You said it much better

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-24 07:26pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Knife wrote:Does it matter what the definition of 'socialist' is in other places are, if in the areana she wants/is expected to run in. sees those postitions as socialist?

I tire of people constantly pointing out the gap between USA liberals/conservatives and European liberals/conservatives right along with US version of socialists and Europe socialists. We get it, doesn't matter.

Perception is fact in politics whether you're in Canada or the US or Europe. Hillary Clinton's views on some issues are the US version of extreme liberal and in some cases the US version of socialist. It doesn't matter if a bunch of Prague socialists would consider her a right wing nut job in the captial of the Czech Republic. She would (presumabley) be running over here in the US where the political scheme is skewed to the right.
My point is that they don't actually recognize what a real socialist is. Israel's politics are vastly more socialist in virtual every way, hell, they organize alot of their farming into actual communes (kibbutz), but people who'd label Clinton a socialist are all about Israel.

The fact is that no matter where you are in the world, be it the US or Europe or anywhere, Hillary Clinton cannot possibly be accurately labelled a socialist because politically she is far to the right of actual socialists on most scales. People call her such because it's a boogieman word, not because it's her actual position, in much the same way people throw the word "fascist" around..

Again, any label you slap on some one, you can go out and search the world and find a person more so deserving of the label. Especially political ones.

My point remains, in the US, some of Sen. Clinton's pet issues are socialist in nature with the political atmosphere of the US.

Your right, in that a 'generalization' can be over used or stretched to the point of uselessness. However, 'generalizations' are just that, general. Just because it does not meet some one's standards in another envirometn, doen'st make it valid in another.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-24 07:27pm

theski wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:I will give you, that some of the buget cuts should be moved to other pork... but Gov cannot continue to grow.. I blame Bush for losing the Fiscal conservatives like myself...
Well then, the quote you cited and made such a farcical fuss about isn't government growth. It's simply keeping the money they collected in the first place to actually pay the bills they're running up.

Novel idea, I know.
Its all in the words.... then she should have said that ...but she didn't. You said it much better

Theski, you're playing the very part of a Faux News Republican, 'spinning' words out to the most ridiculous conclusion possible, then making a phony apology when you're caught in it. If this is some cognizant, fully-aware state, I suggest you cease immediately. If it's somehow ingrained on you, I recommend reading the assembled wit and wisdom of the Founding Fathers on the grand comedy of politics until your indoctorine breaks or you begin randomly capitalizing in the middle of a sentence.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-01-24 07:32pm

SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Well then, the quote you cited and made such a farcical fuss about isn't government growth. It's simply keeping the money they collected in the first place to actually pay the bills they're running up.

Novel idea, I know.
Its all in the words.... then she should have said that ...but she didn't. You said it much better
Theski, you're playing the very part of a Faux News Republican, 'spinning' words out to the most ridiculous conclusion possible, then making a phony apology when you're caught in it. If this is some cognizant, fully-aware state, I suggest you cease immediately. If it's somehow ingrained on you, I recommend reading the assembled wit and wisdom of the Founding Fathers on the grand comedy of politics until your indoctorine breaks or you begin randomly capitalizing in the middle of a sentence.

Funny... but no spin...It is Ingrained... I am a Hilliary hater I admit.

I will read the wit and wisdom... I will still take Bill over his wife anyday

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2006-01-24 08:04pm

Everyone say hello to more knee-jerk conservative bullshit! Thanks Axis for parroting talking points from Sean "3 inch penis" Hannity.

Everyone say hello to another attempted character assassination utterly devoid of a factual rebuttal. You know that you’re supposed to provide proof when you reject someone’s position, in order to keep from looking like you’re talking out your ass, right?

"frighteningly socialistic health care package". That's beautiful. Come to Australia some time and see the kind of shocking liberial-infested slum-filled dystopia is bred through such policies

Red herring. The chief advantage of a free market health care system is innovation, both in patient treatment and in the degree of interest private firms tend to have in biomedical research.

Socialized health care will inevitably create longer lines for the high-risk patient, a lower quality of care all around as incentives for competition are reduced, and, perhaps most important, less innovation in treatment in reaction to rising demands and bureaucratic red tape.

A state-managed health care system also opens the door to greater erosion of a long-standing American tradition of rejecting certain drugs for longer periods of time than is the tendency in Europe, where there are fewer trials per capita before a particular pharmaceutical is approved for sale and use. (This creates a potential for sometimes significantly larger-than-average waves of patients with negative – sometimes fatal – side-effects as every new drug enters the market.)

I really have to wonder why people see her as likely. Because she's outspoken? I can name several others who are. Because she's moved towards the American definition of centre? Perhaps she just wants to solidify her position?

I never said she was “likely.” I said that the newspaper polled people on the issue, and speculated that, if her current jockeying is purpose-driven, it’s conducive to a bid.

Brief note: New York, in the strange makeup of the primaries, is not a Kingmaker. Nor, and this is key, is it terribly big in the national stage.

That may change in the next few years, particularly if either (A) Hillary provokes alliance-building among New York Republicans and disaffected Democrats, and (B) Rudi Guliani emerges as a serious candidate.

Personally, I'd vote for her just because she's seen what the job entails, and not to put too fine a point on it, she's FEMALE.

Dick Cheney has also “seen what the job entails.” Would you vote for him just because he’s had exposure to the office of president?

And as for the rest of this nonsense about Hillary’s political orientation, let’s call an apple an apple and an orange an orange.

As has been already pointed out, using European political scales to place American politicians is outright ludicrous. In the American experience, Hillary Clinton is clearly to the left of spectrum to a greater extent than most of her peers, and favors programs that comport with the central policies of socialist democracies.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-24 08:07pm

Axis Kast wrote:
I really have to wonder why people see her as likely. Because she's outspoken? I can name several others who are. Because she's moved towards the American definition of centre? Perhaps she just wants to solidify her position?
I never said she was “likely.” I said that the newspaper polled people on the issue, and speculated that, if her current jockeying is purpose-driven, it’s conducive to a bid.

It's fairly empty speculation.

Brief note: New York, in the strange makeup of the primaries, is not a Kingmaker. Nor, and this is key, is it terribly big in the national stage.
That may change in the next few years, particularly if either (A) Hillary provokes alliance-building among New York Republicans and disaffected Democrats, and (B) Rudi Guliani emerges as a serious candidate.

Not a chance in hell. The Democratic Primary is a joke when it comes to reform.

As has been already pointed out, using European political scales to place American politicians is outright ludicrous. In the American experience, Hillary Clinton is clearly to the left of spectrum to a greater extent than most of her peers, and favors programs that comport with the central policies of socialist democracies.

Really, that's a load of bullshit. Socialized medical care is proven to work better than the American model, something that anyone obeying the rules of this board(Yanno, under PR 10) would see has been shown repeatedly. But still the old lies are repeated, but eh, why not? It's laughable and I need a laugh.