"Raising billions won't erase Clinton's scandals or vapid centrism"

[RiverLover]

Raising billions won't erase Clinton's scandals or vapid centrism
H.A. Goodman
4/24/15

?itok=HhzAkcbu

The New York Times states that Hillary Clinton is projected raise $2.5 billion during her bid for the presidency. As a result, many Democrats feel that Clinton will automatically win their party's nomination for president and win battleground states needed to secure the White House. However, these billions could easily be wasted on a candidate who has too many political arrows directed at her from both sides of the aisle. Nobody in the Democratic Party owns (her) list of ethical scandals...While former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.) and former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) don't have Clinton's name recognition, neither has to worry about an Associated Press lawsuit demanding access to over 31,830 emails.

Wealthy Democratic donors could be backing a candidate who's willing to immediately jettison any cause for the goal of upholding a disingenuous form of centrism. Billions of dollars in donations won't prevent The Economist from publishing a cover with the question, "What does Hillary stand for?" and noting that "For someone who has been on the national stage for a quarter-century, her beliefs are strangely hard to pin down." Unlike Clinton, other Democrats have no qualms about voicing their viewpoints. While Clinton "uttered not a word" about President Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has had no problem saying it would cause "serious damage here in the U.S."

...None of Clinton's potential Democratic challengers for the White House need to use campaign dollars to erase past or future scandals. Also, none of them are shy about taking a stand on economic or social issues. Warren told Wall Street firms to "bring it on" after some investment banks threatened to withhold campaign donations. O'Malley rightfully stated that the presidency isn't a crown to be passed between two families. Webb wrote a 2002 Washington Post op-ed against the invasion of Iraq and is constantly voicing definitive viewpoints on war and foreign policy. Regarding Webb, few people are as forthright as the decorated Vietnam War veteran, and few people have been as vocal in rightfully criticizing America's recent interventions in places like Libya and Iraq.

In contrast, it took Clinton three weeks to make a statement about Ferguson, Mo., one week to address her email controversy, and she still hasn't taken a definitive stance on Obama's potential Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. She "avoids saying anything about Keystone XL," despite its impact on an issue like global warming. During her race for the White House in 2008, Clinton used racially questionable campaign rhetoric against Obama and even Bill Clinton was forced to say, "I am not a racist." Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage, against the decriminalization of marijuana (far more conservative than being against legalization), voted for wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and three of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks. In her attempt to be all things to as many voters as possible, Clinton's favorite book is the Bible and both the Yankees and Cubs have been labeled her favorite teams at different times....

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239907-raising-billions-wont-erase-clintons-scandals-or

[marym625]

1. and let us not forget her trusted adviser, Larry Summers

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I just this morning, I wrote a reply to someone who keeps saying that the TPP is not Hillary's fight and she shouldn't say anything.

My reply was:

You talk about this is not her fight and how she needs President Obama's backing so she should remain silent. I do not want anyone in the highest office in the land that cannot and will not stand up for her position, and especially will not stand for the people she is asking to represent. 

The cowardice, the manipulation and hiding to be self serving is not Presidential. It is not smart for anyone but Hillary. It's bad politics and it shows complete lack of any caring what happens to the average American. 

So, please, keep touting and shouting your defense of her silence. It will only help those of us that refuse to vote for her, and helps O'Malley and Sanders.

[RiverLover]

2. Good response, marym. There is no excuse for silence.

It is manipulation & self-serving. That's her central campaign theme thus far.

I think the press is complicit though, in not pointing out that she helped draft the TTP and has already praised it on multiple occasions, while serving as SoS. If she were truly a champion for the middle class & regular Americans, she could never have been involved with this "free traitor deal". Or if she says she was forced to because it was her boss's deal & she was working for him, she sure did an authentic job of supporting it.

Her authenticity only shows up when she's doing something to help corporations & Moneyed Interest$. So she is their champion, really, and our chameleon.

[marym625]

13. I'm flabbergasted by the blind trust.

I'm fact, just thinking about the term, blind trust, makes me cringe. Have you ever seen an actual blind trust that wasn't put together to avoid something? Taxes, family from knowing, whatever. Blind trust is a bad thing. In every single way.

[djean111]

3. What I found interesting is the likely soon-to-be-meme that Hillary was only doing

Obama's bidding on the TPP. That assertion means Hillary is free to choose the TPP stance deemed most helpful or least harmful, once her advisers weigh all the implications.

[marym625]

14. It's already out there.

Disgusting excuse

[Fairgo]

4. Notes on the churn

Its intriguing to watch. This behemoth of a campaign cast a shadow over everything, Eclipsing all other possibilities...while it was still floating in that magic pre-announcement space. Once grounded, it immediately starts to sag under its own weight...sinking a bit into the mire, just a little bit...settling into place rather than racing ahead with a big idea. Its early on, but the momentum is fading. She could, at any time, rip free from her handlers and honestly engage the people in a discourse on the future of our democracy, but I don't think its in her. But the bright spots are found in the churn at the edge. A humble effervescence of small candidates now bubbles into real political conversation. With the lack of movement from the Leviathan, there is nothing much to say about her platform beyond the running commentary on stagecraft. No, the real attention is shifting to the democratic conversation taking place among second tier candidates. I am rooting for them all at this point, even the heir apparent. Give me more! Bring on the churn!

[Laser102]

5. All the mud flinging only makes her stronger.

Why in the world would she need a primary when the people on this site are natural adversaries? There will come a time when eyes will glaze over and people will just stop listening to this crowd. I love the sound of President Hillary Clinton. Have a nice day!

[daleanime]

6. The sound of some one who refuses to listen....

I acknowledge her strengths, AND her weaknesses. This of course makes me a mud-flinger because I want a better choice.

[Thespian2]

9. Good Response

Many people want a choice...I think that choice will come...Clinton will garner the most money...some estimate 2 Billion dollars...It will be up to the MOOK MAFIA to control CLINTONLAND long enough to get the queen the nomination...

The problem for any Democrat is that the GodOffalParty is already rigging the election...ie, splitting Electoral College votes by House district.

[MisterP]

11. their only argument is "I get tingly when I hear her"

they'll either applaud fracking, TPP, IWR, and Honduras, or just scream over and over that she's the only thing stopping those

[Doctor_J]

12. a lot like the BOG. with a lot of the same people

[AlbertCat]

8. I love the sound of President Hillary Clinton.

Yes... it's so DEMOCRATIC to have chosen the winner even before the primaries have started.

If she deserves it so much, why don't we just crown her Queen?

[zeemike]

10. I think Hillary supporters eyes have already glazed over

and they have stopped listening.
But while you see it as a strength I see it as a weakness.
It is not them that needs to be convinced to vote for her...and supporters with glazed over eyes will convince no one.

[daleanime]

7. K&R.....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. That 'vapid centrism'

is not just something that hangs around Clintons. It's deliberate, and designed to draw votes from Republicans who are too ashamed to call themselves Republicans these days. People who would have been fine with being labeled Republicans in the 80s, but now call themselves 'Democrats'.

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. Vapid Centrism is the "establishment"

While Hillary clings to
vapid centrism, her positions
make outsiders such as Rand, Cruz
etc seem more like outsiders.

The net effect being voters
tired of unresponsive Federal
governance will gravitate towards
candidates that buck the status quo.

IOW, vapid centrism makes radical
candidates more attractive
to disenfranchised voters.

Hillary is inadvertently giving
life to radical right-winger campaigns.