Sunday, February 8, 2015

I'm not a Misogynist, I love Elizabeth Warren!

UPDATE (Feb.13, 2015) : New Poll reveals that:

1. Likely Democratic voters want to see a contest for the Democratic nomination. According to the memorandum analyzing the data, “Virtually all respondents agree with the case for a contested race, with 98% agreeing that a competitive primary is good for the party, candidates and voters.”

2. When likely Democratic voters are presented with information about Elizabeth Warren and her populist positions on the issues ranging from trade policy to banking regulation to student loan debt, they become more enthusiastic about her running — and about backing her in a race that also includes Clinton. Indeed, while a plurality of likely voters remains undecided in each state, Warren moves into a credible lead over Clinton in Iowa (31-24, with 6 percent for Sanders) and a narrower lead in New Hampshire (30-27, with 6 percent for Sanders).

The desire for a debate is real. So, too, is the worry about a caucus and primary season where the Republicans are campaigning, holding debates and getting all the attention while the Democrats barely go through the motions.

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy."

Yes --- we don't want to get those rich folks angry, lest we be accused of envy and waging a class-war.

But her obvious ties to Wall Street aren't the only reason I won't support Hillary for President, there are many other reasons. Here are a few:

Hillary supported Bill Clinton’s overhaul of the welfare system, which gave states more power to remove people from welfare rolls and pledged to cut federal spending on assistance for the poor by nearly $55 billion over six years.

In 2001, she supported bankruptcy legislation that some Democrats — most notably Elizabeth Warren — had argued would hurt working families and single mothers. And they accused Hillary of doing the bidding of the financial industry. (From 2004: See the video of Elizabeth discussing Hillary's role)

On the proposed financial transaction tax: Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has pushed the idea of a government fee on the sale or purchase of certain financial assets, which he believes could hold Wall Street accountable while funding social services. “Clinton people didn’t want to go near it,” Mr. Baker said.

It was Hillary's husband who deregulated the banks in 1999 that led to the financial collapse of the country. It was Hillary's husband that lowered the capital gains tax for the very rich (from 28% to 20%). It was her husband that signed trade agreement that outsourced so many American jobs. Then, after being married to him for all those years, she distanced herself, saying she was her own person.

Hillary once claimed her and her husband were "dead broke" after leaving the White House — but they're now worth more than $100 million today. (And what about Bill's ties to offshore tax havens?) She also once said that she didn’t consider her family as being "truly well-off". Oh Really? How does she define "middle-class"? If you don't know the people you're supposedly advocating for, then how can you govern on their behalf?

Senator Rand Paul: “It really doesn’t have so much to do with Hillary Clinton as it has to do with that she’s married to a guy who’s got a long history of sexual harassment." Hillary stuck by her lying and cheating man through numerous adulterous affairs. Why? Was the political power the glue that held that marriage together?

Maybe Hillary's least egregious offense was for initially supporting the invasion of Iraq (while being married to a draft dodger) — because she, like many others, had been lied to by the Bush administration. And also in Hillary's defense, I don't currently blame her for the Benghazi affair (but that could change if I learn otherwise).

In a Gallup poll conducted last month, 67 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed in the United States. Since the economy collapsed and the Occupy Wall Street moment, many Americans have waken up to the excess and greed in this country. They are more aware of just how badly they've been getting screwed by our political leaders (both on the right and the left). Now many politicos are trying to act as if they "really" care about the declining middle-class, when all along they have profited from the status quo.

Take Hillary for example, who is, and always has been, a "Third Way" ("Centrist") pro-corporate "moderate" Democrat (not a New Deal "FDR" Progressive Democrat). But only now is she also jumping onto the "economic populist" bandwagon. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said Mrs. Clinton’s economic plan would be more populist and reliant on the government than the centrist approach of trade agreements, welfare reform and deficit reduction associated with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. (So -- Hillary has no real moral convictions either — she just blows wherever the political wind takes her. That sounds more like an opportunist, rather than a creditable and sincere political candidate.)

Speaking of which, what about her character? Here's a parody at YouTube of Hillary Clinton showing great courage while under fire as she and her daughter Chelsea greeted the Bosnian delegation while dodging bullets. Will this be our new Commander-and-Chief in 2016? Ask a real Veteran what it's really like to be dodging bullets. (Here's the actual footage of Clinton landing in Bosnia and a commentary from CBS News.) If Elizabeth Warren ever ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Elizabeth Warren might be the only real bullet that Hillary Clinton would ever have to dodge.

That very last thing I want is to see the Clinton or Bush political dynasty continued in 2016. Can't America find some new (and honest) blood? But, just because I don't like, respect, admire and trust Hillary Clinton to be our next President, that doesn't mean I'm a misogynist. Although, as the better of two evils, I would prefer her over a Republican. But if I had a choice, I would love Elizabeth Warren to be our next President.


  1. Gail Collins at the New York Times:

    "Maybe the secret strength of Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that, since she’s been through this so many times, we can relax and assume she’s already been turned into whatever she’s going to turn into."

  2. Update via Yahoo News:

    My problem with the Clinton "Death Star"...The current hope is that [Hillary] Clinton may not even have to risk debating in the primaries, unless someone really is crazy enough to run against her. (Um … have you guys actually heard Bernie Sanders?)

    Some people around Clinton assume that any skepticism about her candidacy has to do with latent sexism, but I’m pretty sure that’s not my issue, either.

    No, my problem with the Clinton "Death Star" strategy — and the sense of entitlement that comes with it — is that a generation of influential Democrats seems to have lost touch with the anti-establishment impulse that brought them into politics in the first place.

    A lot of these onetime reformers make up a powerful machine that’s just as bent on controlling events as the bosses were back in the day. They’re no longer interested in having a fight over the direction of the party, in empowering new voices and letting the voters decide. They’re interested in locking up the big money, freezing out potential competitors and making sure other officials get on board early, so as to avoid any intra-party debate.

    * My note: "Um … have you guys also actually heard Elizabeth Warren?

  3. Unions may not back Hillary

    AP: The fight over trade is steeling labor-allied Democrats in the House against giving Obama the kind of fast-track authority he wants to push trade deals through Congress. If Obama were to succeed, trade deals won with Republican support could depress union votes, with potential consequences for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton if she decides to run for president.

    Labor's list of grievances with the Obama administration began with his failure to press for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009 — when Democrats controlled the House and he had a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. The legislation would have made it easier for workers to join unions, a top priority for labor whose overall membership numbers have steadily slipped.

    They've also objected to a provision in Obama's health care law that will tax the kind of low-deductible, high-benefits health insurance policies that many unions have negotiated in lieu of higher wages.

    And they weren't happy that Obama's second Democratic National Convention was held in a right-to-work state like North Carolina.

    Passage of NAFTA over labor opposition in late 1993 has been blamed for a decrease in voter participation by union households in the 1994. Unions like the AFL-CIO punished Democrats by cutting back on their political funding.

    "A big trade fight now can't be helpful in terms of union participation in the next election," Rosenthal said. "There will be some unions that will be extremely worried about jobs and trade, and Secretary Clinton is going to have to deal with that."

  4. //////////////////////////////// UPDATE /////////////////////////

    David Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC

    "The public airing of dirty laundry comes as sources say Priorities is struggling to live up to the hopes of some Clinton allies, who had argued it should aim to raise as much as $500 million to eviscerate prospective Clinton rivals in the primary and general elections." (* Rivals meaning Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden)

  5. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says he will be running to win in 2016 if he decides to challenge Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary. "I am giving thought to running for president of the United States," Sanders said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Monday. "But don't tell my wife. ... If I run, I want to run to win and to run to win we need to have millions of people actively involved."

  6. Being a true liberal since 2000, the only thing Bernie can maybe do is move Clinton to the left. He has no chance of actually winning since he has admitted he is a "democratic socialist" oh the horror!, the horror! .... he will never get funded by wall street democrats.

    I love Bernie but he is probably more effective in the senate with Warren (who says she isn't running). I hope if he does decide to run he doesn't have to give up his senate seat.

    1. I'd like to see both Bernie and Liz run...even if they don't have a chance of winning, it will put Hillary on the record as to her policy preferences when they debate during the primaries.

  7. Hillary’s Email Mess Gets Messier

  8. Will Hillary Clinton play the "sex card" to make her GOP rivals appear like male chauvinist misogynist pigs, just to win the presidential election? Will her political rivals have to constantly walk on egg shells, and always be very politically correct, while constantly on guard to any perceived notions of sexism whenever they open their mouth to say something about her?

    That's another reason why we need to see Democrats debate EACH OTHER in a primary on the core issues, rather than just winning elections in personality contests. Someone like Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be attacked as a "sexist" for criticizing Hillary. That might also be why Hillary invited Liz to her mansion -- to "neutralize" her and to keep her from competing against or criticizing Hillary. Mrs. Clinton is very clever and manipulating in that way.

    Do Hillary's deleted emails contain any information about those foreign donations from questionable sources to her and her husband's foundation? If so, could she claim these were "personal" emails, and not government correspondence that contained state secrets — and so, had every right to delete them or not submit them to the State Department?