Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merrily

(45,251 posts)
Wed May 27, 2015, 10:57 AM May 2015

Populist Group Post: Is it really out of order to mention Bill Clinton?

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

A while back, DUers were posting lists of things that should not be mentioned in connection with Hillary Clinton during this primary, lest he or she who mentioned it be considered sexist. Not a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of facts, mind you, but bigotry. (Months before that, I'd been "informed" that anyone who made any mention at all of the Bosnia airport story was sexist, but that claim is too ludicrous on its face to warrant discussion.)

The list included Bill Clinton and his administration--as though Hillary somehow has nothing to do with the man she chose to be her husband and the father of her child, nothing to do with the man she helped sell to America in 1992, the man to who she has chosen to remain married for decades, etc. As a mom and a wife with my own career, I find this nonsensical as well as all too convenient.

In 1985, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party founded the DLC in hopes of altering the Democratic Party. Among the founding members were a group of professional politicians.....and Hillary Clinton. As best as I have been able to determine, she was the only founding member of the DLC who joined as the spouse of a politician.

When Bill Clinton ran for POTUS in 1992, he said that electing him would give America two for the price of one, meaning him and Hillary.


During the campaign, questions of conflict of interest regarding state business and the politically powerful Rose Law Firm, at which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, arose. Clinton argued the questions were moot because all transactions with the state had been deducted before determining Hillary's firm pay.[3][46] Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that, with Hillary, voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".[47]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Hillary never demurred. So, I think it's more than fair to say that they sold his administration as as a joint Presidency. Consistent with this, in 1996, America was asked to re-elect Bill AND Hillary, as though Hillary had been elected in 1992.

Bill Clinton had also sold his candidacy by campaigning on national health care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Soon after the 1993 inauguration, it was clear that Hillary was to lead the effort to pass health care legislation, something so extraordinary and unprecedented in American presidential politics that Hillary's role, especially the secrecy of the proceedings involving a "private citizen," became the subject of litigation.

The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to Mrs. Clinton's participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.[15] Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation in June 1993, when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady of the United States could be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for the purpose of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.[16][17]

Also in February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. In 1997, Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[18] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned in 1999 the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

The result of the litigation was that Hillary, as First Lady, was declared a public official. Why? Because she was married to Bill while he was President; because he and she chose this role for her and because they decided to litigate to have her declared a public official.

Perhaps ironically....


In September 2007, former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article named "The Hillarycare Mythology",[30] where he asserted that Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, was the driving force behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; that the task force headed by Hillary Clinton quickly became useless and was not the primary force behind formulating the proposed policy; and that "Not only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency."[30]
id.

Had the healthcare bill passed, it would very likely have been the legislation that Bill in fact, would be pointing to today as his legacy, not NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, the Telecommunications Act or Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Concomitantly, I very much doubt that Hillary would have tried to disassociate herself from it when running for President, either in either 2008 or 2016.

As it was, it failed for many reasons, including that Congressional Democrats were not willing to back it. However, it became a model for Romneycare in Massacusetts. (Romney did attempt to distance his plan from that of the Clintons, but his attempts were lame and unconvincing.)

As stated above, in 1996, America was asked to re-elect Hillary and Bill Clinton.








Sometimes, ONLY Hillary Clinton








When Hillary ran for the US Senate against Lazio, she endorsed Bill's action in having ended "welfare as we know it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/29/nyregion/campaigns-soft-pedal-on-children-and-the-poor.html?pagewanted=1

Of Hillary and Republican Lazio, Deepak Bhargava, director of public policy at the Center for Community Change, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington, said: ''Neither of them can be called a staunch defender of antipoverty programs.'' Instead, he said, they have worked on more marginal items. id.


In 2007-08 Hillary opted for "a tight embrace" of the legacy of the Clinton administration, taking credit for its positive aspects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102588.html


Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to her qualifications to be President. And she referred to events during his administration using words like "us," "we" and "our." For example, I remember her response when some members of the LGBT community told her they'd worked to elect her husband, then were so disappointed in his treatment of them: "I thought we did very well," she responded. During that primary, she also named Bill Clinton as one of the ten best Presidents in all of US history.


And the main basis for her assertion (of being far more experienced than Obama) is the time she spent as first lady. Bill Clinton is hitting the theme hard as the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire draws closer, pointing back to the 1990s, citing his record as his wife's, referring to the work "we" did in office and, for the most part, brushing past or ignoring the tumult of those years.

.....


On Thursday night in Holderness, N.H., the former president returned again and again in his hour-long speech to the achievements of his administration as proof that his wife would be able to bring results if she were elected. Several times, he cited the statistics on the economic gains of the 1990s -- the rise in family income, the decline in poverty and in the number of uninsured, and the increase in students obtaining college aid ("I still know the numbers," he said).

.....

For all his talk about the 1990s, though, the former president does not go into great detail about the role his wife played in his administration, instead simply leaving the impression that she was part of the team that brought about the decade's gains.

......

At times, his pitch for his wife is focused so much on his own accomplishments as president that it almost sounds as if he himself is running for reelection. In a two-hour interview Thursday with the Concord Monitor, he referred to his having made a "terrible mistake" while president, an apparent reference to the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, and then added: "The voters will have to make their own judgments about that. I've done everything I could, first of all, to try to be a good president and, secondly, to try to be a good after-president."


id.
As Bill and Hillary had in 1996, many of her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy as a two for one deal, with no demurrer from either of the Clintons Additionally, Bill also took a highly visible (and vocal) role in her 2007-08 Presidential primary campaign, at times sounding as though he were her Svengali:



Since all that did not work out too well, Bill may take a less visible role this time, but he is still there.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/11/hillary-clinton-bill-husband-presidential-campaign/25591609/

So, it seems Hillary is, and always has been, very willing to be fully associated with her husband's politics and Presidency--as long as it appears that so doing could possibly advantage her. However, one must take all or nothing and it is way too late in this game to opt for nothing, nor has Hillary done so. Bottom line: Neither the Clintons nor their supporters should expect to have it every which way on this issue.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and Bubba had behaved about her administration and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain if he were runninng for the Presidency.)

ETA: Recently, I heard that Hillary does not want to be judged by her husband's administration or by her past, including her past campaigns for Senate and POTUS, only by her current campaign. No doubt she does not. However, I don't think she gets to decide whether voters will have amnesia. And, trust me, if Hillary or Bill or Hillary's campaign think any of the foregoing will help Hillary's current campaign, we'll hear about it.
57 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Populist Group Post: Is it really out of order to mention Bill Clinton? (Original Post) merrily May 2015 OP
Did some one think the Cliintons would not be questioned, criticised, attacked ... from the left ... JoePhilly May 2015 #1
? My post doesn't say someone thought the Clintons would not be attacked or anything like that. merrily May 2015 #2
Clinton supporters might want to say that he and Chelsea are off limits. I disagree. NYC_SKP May 2015 #3
I tend to think that Clinton supporters know what's coming. JoePhilly May 2015 #4
AFAIK, Hillary has never associated herself with Chelsea's Wall Street or media jobs merrily May 2015 #5
Good point, however there are parallels. NYC_SKP May 2015 #28
Please see Reply 21. merrily May 2015 #29
When you say "fair game" it describes your upaloopa May 2015 #9
You're addressing a host of this group, fair warning. NYC_SKP May 2015 #10
Warning? I am not afraid! upaloopa May 2015 #11
No problems, it's just that sometimes people don't realize where they are when they post. NYC_SKP May 2015 #12
Well I don't think you should use this platform upaloopa May 2015 #15
! Phlem May 2015 #18
jane enid602 Dec 2015 #57
No, we aren't looking to block people, but we are looking for a safe haven for like-minded people merrily May 2015 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author merrily May 2015 #19
Chelsea was off limits when she was 12. Paka May 2015 #34
We collectively fredamae May 2015 #6
Children are deemed to have been off limits because they did not seek the spotlight, only a parent merrily May 2015 #7
All good points too fredamae May 2015 #8
Chelsea is now an adult, hedge funder and overpaid media "journalist", foundation board member. NYC_SKP May 2015 #14
I meant that my OP did not attempt to make any case about Chelsea. I am not trying to say merrily May 2015 #21
IMO, it is not out of line to mention Bill Clinton. NYC_SKP May 2015 #30
Good Points, Merrily. KoKo May 2015 #13
Thanks. If the subject comes up, you or anyone who wishes can always link to this thread. merrily May 2015 #20
One of things I like about our "Groups" KoKo May 2015 #23
With my blessing. merrily May 2015 #25
I'd say context is everything nxylas May 2015 #16
I will not ignore NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Enthusiast May 2015 #17
...! KoKo May 2015 #22
I've been reading that she may try to disassociate herself from ending "welfare as we know it." merrily May 2015 #24
It's not really any different than bringing up W or HW when talking about Jeb Bush arcane1 May 2015 #26
I do see it as different. merrily May 2015 #27
Totally misogynistic. MannyGoldstein May 2015 #31
For a woman. merrily May 2015 #32
But that's not what matters now MannyGoldstein May 2015 #35
You'd better sign that one "Third Way Manny" before I merrily May 2015 #36
I'm just a typical Sanders supporter MannyGoldstein May 2015 #37
Then I am drumming you out of this group. merrily May 2015 #38
! MannyGoldstein May 2015 #40
Pffft! Enthusiast May 2015 #41
It isn't just fair to bring Bill AND Hillary into this, it is necessary. whereisjustice May 2015 #39
Good post, thanks merrily. Scuba May 2015 #42
Thank you, Scuba. Glad you found it useful. merrily May 2015 #44
Pinning this thread demwing May 2015 #43
Thanks, demwing merrily May 2015 #45
Great. So Let's talk more about JANE SANDERS. pnwmom Dec 2015 #46
Not even going to read your bs. J. Sanders was never sold as Sanders' co-Senator or any of things merrily Dec 2015 #47
Jane Sanders hasn't been in a position yet where she could do really serious damage. pnwmom Dec 2015 #48
LOL! Speaking of playing fast and loose with the truth..... merrily Dec 2015 #49
That's what you're always accusing the Clintons of. Clintons, meet Jane Sanders. pnwmom Dec 2015 #50
Already responded to on this thread--and this is still a protected group merrily Dec 2015 #51
Hillary and Bill and Bernie are ALL populists. So is Martin, for that matter. pnwmom Dec 2015 #53
Hillary is no populist, but YOU are the one posting in this group, not Hillary, merrily Dec 2015 #54
Where was I "flailing wildly"? pnwmom Dec 2015 #55
LOL! merrily Dec 2015 #56
PS When did you complain about the Clinton foundation reporting $10,000,000 as zero? merrily Dec 2015 #52

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
1. Did some one think the Cliintons would not be questioned, criticised, attacked ... from the left ...
Wed May 27, 2015, 10:59 AM
May 2015

... and the right?

I don't know anyone who thought that.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
3. Clinton supporters might want to say that he and Chelsea are off limits. I disagree.
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:08 AM
May 2015

They are a unit in many ways, all members of the various foundations and all mixed up in banking and media.

Chelsea's job in banking and her $660K gig with NBC.

These are not trivial matters, it's fair game IMO.

Pantsuits and blow jobs, however, we don't need to discuss.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
4. I tend to think that Clinton supporters know what's coming.
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:15 AM
May 2015

Everything is coming.

True, false, fabricated, manufactured ... endless.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
5. AFAIK, Hillary has never associated herself with Chelsea's Wall Street or media jobs
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:30 AM
May 2015

or job performance, so that is a distinguishable issue from anything I touched on in my OP. I am not even talking about the Clinton Foundations. Right now, I am just discussing her husband's administration and his performance in her campaigns.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
28. Good point, however there are parallels.
Wed May 27, 2015, 06:16 PM
May 2015

Except that Chelsea hasn't run for office, it's a different matter, I'll agree.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
9. When you say "fair game" it describes your
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:02 PM
May 2015

motives exactly. To you it is a game.
So go play your games if you must.
I see you are still are making shit up
Everything you say about Hillary should be discounted and taken with an ocean of salt.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
10. You're addressing a host of this group, fair warning.
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:17 PM
May 2015

"Fair game" means that what the family does as related to politics or potential conflicts of interest should be allowable discussion.

Chelsea's connection to big banks is fair game, her cush job at a major news outlet is fair game, and Bill's doings are also fair game.

At least in this group they are.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
11. Warning? I am not afraid!
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:25 PM
May 2015

What is with some people here? Don't warn me. I am banned from a few forums and I wear it as a batch of honor.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
12. No problems, it's just that sometimes people don't realize where they are when they post.
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:32 PM
May 2015

I did that once and the Hillary group blocked me even after I deleted my reply.

No worries, we aren't trying to block people.

That said, I feel that in this case the entire Clinton family are evident of the problem and the need to reform the party.

To discuss and debate issues, candidates, and strategies related to the promotion of progressive, populist reforms within the Democratic Party.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
15. Well I don't think you should use this platform
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:42 PM
May 2015

to attack Hillary because this group doesn't speak for Democrats. It speaks for those who post here.But I don't make the rules.
A lot if people don't realize that they have created a bubble in which to live and mistake the bubble for the real world. Also leadership of a bubble group is an ego boost that you can't get that easily outside the bubble.

enid602

(9,043 posts)
57. jane
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 08:21 AM
Dec 2015

It also leaves plenty of room to talk about Jane Sanders' exploits. Google Jane Sanders/Burlington College/Overstatement of assets/$200K golden parachute. I don't know if it benefits Bernie to get the spouses involved.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
33. No, we aren't looking to block people, but we are looking for a safe haven for like-minded people
Wed May 27, 2015, 07:07 PM
May 2015

to discuss views. Upaloopa's posts on this thread did not fit any part that description.

Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)

Paka

(2,760 posts)
34. Chelsea was off limits when she was 12.
Wed May 27, 2015, 08:07 PM
May 2015

Not any more. She is intrinsically involved; a core part of the unit.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
6. We collectively
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:32 AM
May 2015

have to decide how to handle this unprecedented circumstance.
Have we ever had a wife of a former POTUS run for POTUS before?
I understand it is traditional to consider the spouse and kids are "off-limits".
This is different.
However, why not---doesn't this new situation call for "new traditions"?
As a former POTUS her spouse had a Treeeeeemendous impact on some "stuff" we're dealing with now.
I don't believe traditional "hands off" rules apply in this instance for the spouse. Kids and grandkids still hold as off limits, imo.
Hopefully, mentions of Bill (and HRC) will hold strong on His (Her) Issue Positions/Actions and not silly and meaningless personal attacks over "The Old/New Scandals".

merrily

(45,251 posts)
7. Children are deemed to have been off limits because they did not seek the spotlight, only a parent
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:38 AM
May 2015

did, especially a minor child.

I don't think that rationale applies when adult offspring conduct their own campaign events for a parent. And it certainly does not apply to a former President. In this case, however, the claim has been made that it would be somehow sexist to associate Hillary with her husband. However, if she's done that herself.....

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
14. Chelsea is now an adult, hedge funder and overpaid media "journalist", foundation board member.
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:41 PM
May 2015

Her connections to banks and to media and the fact that she's not a child make her fair political game, IMO.

Which isn't to say we should call her out, just that where there's a reason to it ought not be off-limits.

This family, good grief.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
21. I meant that my OP did not attempt to make any case about Chelsea. I am not trying to say
Wed May 27, 2015, 05:15 PM
May 2015

that a case is impossible to make.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
30. IMO, it is not out of line to mention Bill Clinton.
Wed May 27, 2015, 06:40 PM
May 2015

He'll be a part of her inner circle, a virtual cabinet member.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
13. Good Points, Merrily.
Wed May 27, 2015, 12:33 PM
May 2015

I've always considered them running as a pair. And that if she wins it will be Bill's Third Term. I've asked many times on pro Hillary posts here on DU what Bill's role would be as the "First Man." Would they live together in the WH and what role would he take? I can hardly see him in charge of the WH Christmas Decorations or the Easter Egg Hunt. Who would fulfill that job while he serves as Co-President.

Anyway, hopefully you will post this in GD when the opportunity comes up to debunk that they aren't running as a team and that Bill's Administrations policies shouldn't be examined because Hillary was only First Lady and anything Bill did shouldn't reflect on her or how she would govern. As you've shown and many of us who've been around awhile and voted for Bill the first time know...They were always a Co-Political Team.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
23. One of things I like about our "Groups"
Wed May 27, 2015, 05:46 PM
May 2015

is that its easy to follow a "narrative" and find posts to bring back that can be reposted to clarify issues. Yours is certainly one (that as we move forward) will be important to remember or Bookmark.

nxylas

(6,440 posts)
16. I'd say context is everything
Wed May 27, 2015, 01:54 PM
May 2015

Yes, Hillary is her own person, and should not be treated as a mere extension of her husband. But as you say, it is ludicrous to think that the two of them weren't in broad agreement politically during Bill's presidency, even if they may have disagreed on the details.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
17. I will not ignore NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm, Leach, Bliley.
Wed May 27, 2015, 04:09 PM
May 2015

I will not ignore the damage they have done to my life, personally.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
24. I've been reading that she may try to disassociate herself from ending "welfare as we know it."
Wed May 27, 2015, 05:46 PM
May 2015

IMO, she will try to disassociate herself from anything that looks as though it could hurt her bid. As to welfare specifically, however, he ran on that in 1992. while promising America two presidents for the price of one and Hillary supported it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/will-hillary-clinton-run-against-her-husband-s-welfare-legacy-

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
26. It's not really any different than bringing up W or HW when talking about Jeb Bush
Wed May 27, 2015, 05:58 PM
May 2015

Same thing: people running for president who are related to former presidents. Some degree of comparison is inevitable.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
27. I do see it as different.
Wed May 27, 2015, 06:15 PM
May 2015

On the side of people who don't want it mentioned: without the points I raised in my OP, it might be sexist to assume that a wife approved of everything her husband did while he was in office. For example, I've never heard Mamie Eisenhower blamed for sending troops to Beirut, or Pat Nixon blamed for the Watergate cover up or any of Nixon's other sins.

Ironically, that is because of sexism: in their day, it never occurred to anyone that a wife might be a co-President, an advisor to her husband, etc. even though that was probably true of more than one President's wife.

Abigail Adams comes to mind, as does Edith Wilson. Nonetheless, I don't think it's fair to assume a wife approved of, and was responsible for, everything her husband did in his career, regardless of his profession.

However, in this case, I believe the factors in the OP do justify associating Hillary with what happened during her husband's administration. You can't run as co-Presidents in two elections and one primary (2008), then decide that doesn't suit the new Populist stand you wish to take after all and therefore anyone who attempts association is sexist.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
35. But that's not what matters now
Wed May 27, 2015, 08:11 PM
May 2015

Social issues must take a back seat to economic issues.

You understand.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
36. You'd better sign that one "Third Way Manny" before I
Wed May 27, 2015, 08:23 PM
May 2015

forget just how non-violent I am and smack you upside your virtual head.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
37. I'm just a typical Sanders supporter
Wed May 27, 2015, 10:56 PM
May 2015

All I care about is cash and maintaining the white male patriarchy.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
38. Then I am drumming you out of this group.
Wed May 27, 2015, 11:01 PM
May 2015

Oh, wait. I'm junior to you (and everyone else) in the host hierarchy. My only option is to drum myself out of hosting.



 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
43. Pinning this thread
Thu May 28, 2015, 06:36 AM
May 2015

thanks for the work you put into this, it needs to be added to our collective reference library!

pnwmom

(109,558 posts)
46. Great. So Let's talk more about JANE SANDERS.
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:29 AM
Dec 2015

How she managed to get a job as Burlington College President with an online PHD from a program that was de-certified soon after she graduated -- and only a year and a half of college-level work experience.

How a trustee at the college said they hired her after her presentation to the board convinced them that her connections to Bernie would help them raise money.

How she actually raised money by applying for millions in loans -- based on millions of dollars in pledges that failed to materialize. (Including one future bequest for a million dollars that she falsely reported as a current pledge at the rate of $150K per year.)

How the majority of the staff protested her decision to fire a faculty member who had been named teacher of the year just a year previously. And when asked why she had no grievance procedure for faculty, she claimed she didn't need one . . . because it was a college, not a university.

Can you imagine? Arguing against a college having a grievance procedure?

And this wonderful lady is supposed to be one of Bernie's chief advisors.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
47. Not even going to read your bs. J. Sanders was never sold as Sanders' co-Senator or any of things
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:33 AM
Dec 2015

addressed in the OP. When you prove things comparable to those stated in the OP, maybe I will read your spin, but not until then.

Meanwhile, I have a feeling that whatever you posted, even if true, would not "amount to a hill of beans" in comparison with the prison complex, the was in Iraq and the rest of the Third Way atrocities.

BTW, you know this is a protected group for populists, right? Third Wayers trying to campaign as populists have a different protected group. Try you post there.

pnwmom

(109,558 posts)
48. Jane Sanders hasn't been in a position yet where she could do really serious damage.
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:35 AM
Dec 2015

Other than drive a college into near bankruptcy. But she has proven she can play fast and lose with the truth -- and use her connection to Bernie for her own gain.

pnwmom

(109,558 posts)
50. That's what you're always accusing the Clintons of. Clintons, meet Jane Sanders.
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:39 AM
Dec 2015

The woman who reported a million dollar future bequest as a million dollar current pledge.

pnwmom

(109,558 posts)
53. Hillary and Bill and Bernie are ALL populists. So is Martin, for that matter.
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:56 AM
Dec 2015

Bernie wants to get for people what he's convinced they should want.

Hillary wants to figure out what people want and then help them get it.

Two different styles of populism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/hillary-the-populist/400376/

If Sanders is a rhetorical populist, then Clinton is one in a different, and more literal sense: She actually tries to cater to the majority of likely voters. The Clintons have a reputation for obsessing over the public mood, with Bill catching blowback during his presidency for relying “too much on constant temperature-taking, even scripting his message—right down to his actual words—to polling and focus groups.” That reputation has followed Hillary. Reason recently classified her as a “Focus Group Democrat,” and it isn’t hard to find comments on articles accusing her of believing “what the polls and focus groups tell her to believe.”


But isn’t this barometric sensitivity just a sophisticated method for responding to the largest possible coalition of voters? It’s a coldly efficient way of giving the people what they want, calculated to upset as few as possible.


Politicians aiming for the center mass of public opinion aren’t a recent development in Anglo American politics. The 19th-century British journalist Walter Bagehot fawned over conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel’s ability to do just that: “From a certain peculiarity of intellect and fortune, he was never in advance of his time. Of almost all the great measures with which his name is associated, he attained great eminence as an opponent before he attained even greater eminence as their advocate.”

SNIP

Hillary Clinton, like Peel, is no prophet raging in advance of a cause. Instead, both politicians pursued synchronicity with the demands of the electorate, never outpacing the collective moral imagination with their own desires, and reframing compromise as virtuous inclusion.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
54. Hillary is no populist, but YOU are the one posting in this group, not Hillary,
Wed Dec 9, 2015, 08:02 AM
Dec 2015

and you have not been posting anything populist, other than pretending Hillary's most recent "evolutions" actually make her a populist. And, once again, when confronted, you are lash out and begin flail wildly at others. Whatever you may imagine, that doesn't make the ones you lash out at look bad and it certainly doesn't make you look good.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Populist Reform of the Democratic Party»Populist Group Post: Is ...