Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire

[Beet]

"Let's finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart," she said. "The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation's wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let's close that gap. Let's start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas."

... in June 2007.

Echoing Elizabeth Warren, she said,

"We've had millions of Americans just drop out of the labor force," she said. "Corporate profits, however, are at a 40-year high. So here we contrast very high corporate profits, and the average American family has lost $1,000 in income in the last seven years...we face new threats that neither the president nor federal regulators have adequately acknowledged or addressed...I don't think we'd be comfortable with our own government speculating in real estate or buying up companies, and we should be doubly uncomfortable with the idea of a foreign government doing these things in our country...Finally, we need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products... We can’t let Wall Street send the bill to your street."

... in November 2007.

Who is this new Hillary?

[Türkisblau]

Why do people refuse to understand the concept of rhetoric? What she says on the campaign trail is not necessarily what her policy goals will end up being.

[Beet]

Why do people refuse to understand the concept of rhetoric? What she says on the campaign trail is not necessarily what her policy goals will end up being.

Oh, I definitely agree that she should be backing up her rhetoric with concrete policy proposals that actually move the needle in a significant way. I think people are more surprised that she's talking about income inequality than they should be, because that big element of her '08 campaign was generally ignored.

[Brewer]

She only said these things because of the prominent grassroots #DraftWarren campaign in 2007.

[Pyro]

Hillary's top campaign doners are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase.
If you believe she gives any genuine consideration into income inequality then you're not paying attention.

[King]

Hillary says it = rhetoric. Not Hillary says it = not rhetoric. I guess that's logically consistent. Carry on.

[Sumner 1868]

Hillary says it = rhetoric. Not Hillary says it = not rhetoric. I guess that's logically consistent. Carry on.

Well, no, literally everything Obama says is rhetoric that he doesn't mean.

[King]

Hillary says it = rhetoric. Not Hillary says it = not rhetoric. I guess that's logically consistent. Carry on.

WHO SAID THAT?! When Warren talks about it, it's also populist rhetoric, I've never denied that. Dude, your Hillary adulation is getting worse than the Democrats' one.

You're changing the conversation midway. Rhetoric in this context is being used to mean disingenuous. People are generally saying Warren is genuine and good, while Clinton is pandering and bad. There's no evidence they are at all different.

It's not adulation as opposed to consistently enforcing that we don't forget facts. In fervent defense of facts, one cannot help become defensive of Hillary Clinton on this board.

[King]

The problem for Hillary is just that her image and her reputation are already severely damaged, a majority of Americans don't think she is honest and trustworthy, and those numbers ARE facts.

Except she is still considered the second most honest and trusted politician in America, after her husband.  If we are going to accept that more knowledge = less appealing with Hillary as a law, then Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio are all TOAST, because they're already underwater on reputation with 30% of America still not knowing anything about them. A plurality of Americans hate all of these people. If the trend holds, things will get worse for them, they are all done.

Add in that Hillary can run a general election campaign from the start while all of the aforementioned actually have to hate each other in a GOP primary battle, and this election is dead on arrival.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I have never claimed that Clinton and Warren are different at all, they are both hypocrites in my opinion. And the only people who think they are different are far-left Democrats.

[CapoteMonster]

Hillary's top campaign doners are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase.
If you believe she gives any genuine consideration into income inequality then you're not paying attention.

[Beet]

Yes, I'm sure she's completely controlled by donations that amount to literally 0.2% of her expected total fundraising...

[Bull Moose Base]

People who consider Warren more progressive than Clinton are usually talking more about economic policy.

How is Warren a hypocrite? Not saying Clinton is but, as a candidate for president, now and 8 years ago, everything she says is obviously influenced by political considerations. That's true for every presidential candidate. Even guys like Rubio will claim addressing inequality as a priority, with or without ny substance to back it up. But Warren is not a presidential candidate and wasn't even a senate candidate until she got drafted into it because she was consistently a strong advocate for middle and lower classes.

By the Hillary just wrote up a glowing piece on Warren for Time. I don't think that means she'll govern as progressive as Warren would but similarly to Obama who has been more progressive than he's given credit for.

[Sumner 1868]

People who consider Warren more progressive than Clinton are usually talking more about economic policy.

How is Warren a hypocrite? Not saying Clinton is but, as a candidate for president, now and 8 years ago, everything she says is obviously influenced by political considerations. That's true for every presidential candidate. Even guys like Rubio will claim addressing inequality as a priority, with or without ny substance to back it up. But Warren is not a presidential candidate and wasn't even a senate candidate until she got drafted into it because she was consistently a strong advocate for middle and lower classes.

By the Hillary just wrote up a glowing piece on Warren for Time. I don't think that means she'll govern as progressive as Warren would but similarly to Obama who has been more progressive than he's given credit for.

Just this week he's been pushing "fast track" for TPP.

[IceSpear]

She only said these things because of the prominent grassroots #DraftWarren campaign in 2007.

LOL

[bobloblaw]

She has no ideological core. She didnt care about these issues until two days ago

[IceSpear]

She has no ideological core. She didnt care about these issues until two days ago

2007 was two days ago? Wow, time really does fly.

[Bacon King]

Hillary's top campaign doners are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase.
If you believe she gives any genuine consideration into income inequality then you're not paying attention.

1. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign raised $229.4 million from its donors.
2. Those three "donors" you list only donated a combined $1.3 million to Hillary's campaign.
3. "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."
4. Hillary's two biggest donors were actually EMILY's List and the law firm DLA Piper; those three banks were donors 3 thru 5.
5. All three of those banks gave Obama over twice what they gave Hillary.

[© tweed]

during this election cycle, we're actually gonna get Hillary partisans try to argue that she's not the very embodiment of "neoliberal corporatist hack"?  because she says nice things about working families and etc?

how many times do you fools have to re-learn the same damn thing?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am not dismissive of the notion that Hillary is full of s**t on plenty of things, but the criticism of her on this board in the last few days has been nonsensical and constantly contradicts itself. I hate feeling almost obligated to defend her against such shifting goalposts.

[© tweed]

I am not dismissive of the notion that Hillary is full of s**t on plenty of things, but the criticism of her on this board in the last few days has been nonsensical and constantly contradicts itself. I hate feeling almost obligated to defend her against such shifting goalposts.

e-mail accounts and Benghazigate are "unfair".  corporate lawyer for Sam Wal-Mart is legitimate criticism.


also: keep in mind that multibillion dollar campaigns are inherently full of sh**t.  they are akin to big-budget movies.

[Beet]

I don't think it's really so farfetched that she has genuine center-left economic convictions, given the issues (health care, children, women's rights) that have been consistent for her for over 40 years. But at the end of the day, you're right, I don't really give a sh__ what's in Hillary's heart of hearts, which is something none of us will ever find out anyway (same goes for any other pol). I care that she'll be a strong advocate for working families because it'll be in her interest as a Democrat. I do think she was to the left of Obama on economics in 2007-08, but very few people noticed, in part because the economic collapse was only looming then and not yet realized.

Here is an article about Hillary's time on Walmart's board. Walton needed a woman on the board so he brought her on, and she agreed, a position that amounted to about four meetings a year. She was not Walton's first choice, she was the only woman, she was young, she was an outsider, and by all accounts she was the only liberal on the board. Walton hated unions and by all accounts, every other member on the board was against them. She did not speak out for unions. She did use her position to successfully push for more environmentally friendly stores, and she pushed for women's representation with very limited results. Then she left.

As an aside, at the time Hillary accepted the position, Wal-Mart was already within 2 years of toppling Sears Roebuck as the nation's largest retailer. Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country, and here is a huge local company (whose revenues today are over 4 1/2 times state GDP), probably more modest in 1988, but still. It's not like she picked some obscure, unimportant anti-union company and sought them out as representative of the type of company she'd like to sit on the board of.