Clinton VP news LATEST: Podesta now calling the losers to tell them its not them

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats in Office that are more conservative than Clinton: Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, John Bel Edwards, Dan Lipinski, Andrew Cuomo, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Ron Wyden, Joe Donnelly, Steve Bullock, Scott Peters, Claire McCaskill, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Henry Cuelllar, Gene Green, John Hickenlooper, Tim Kaine, Bob Casey. There are probably others. After November, we'll likely be able to add Pete Gallego to the list.

[IceSpear]

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Al Gore is to the right of Hillary Clinton? On climate change, he receives money from the fossil fuel industry (of course not; he is not even in politics anymore)? He voted for Iraq (he was against it, while Clinton was for it)? He ran in 2000 on expanding Social Security; Clinton has supported the chained CPI cuts to Social Security. Joe Biden? Seriously? You genuinely believe MOST Democratic Congress members are to the right of Clinton. Now I think you might be a troll.

Biden voted for the Iraq War. He was in favor of the 1994 crime bill. He had major ties to the credit card industries and the banking industries. The list goes on. His voting record in the Senate was way to the right of Hillary's. Her voting record was in the more liberal half of the Democratic caucus. Look it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/us/politics/banking-ties-could-hurt-joe-biden-in-race-with-populist-overtone.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

I realize your ilk give him a pass for stuff you'd string up Hillary over because he is a man, but don't expect to not get called out for it.

[Hermit For Peace]

*snip* Two strong females working together is not a good idea anyway. *snip*

And why would that be?

It's just something that happens. Women know about it. If you want more articulation, here's a pretty good short article that explains it better than me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572235/Women-HATE-office-Females-operate-better-male-bosses-study-finds.html

 

[Suck my caulk]

Democrats in Office that are more conservative than Clinton: Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, John Bel Edwards, Dan Lipinski, Andrew Cuomo, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Ron Wyden, Joe Donnelly, Steve Bullock, Scott Peters, Claire McCaskill, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Henry Cuelllar, Gene Green, John Hickenlooper, Tim Kaine, Bob Casey. There are probably others. After November, we'll likely be able to add Pete Gallego to the list.

Most of those are members of the Blue Dog Caucus, and that is a sad reflection on the modern-day Democratic Party. Thank you for providing a list, but that is not a majority. Clinton is still relatively right-wing. Call me a troll if you like, but Chafee (a Republican until 2007) was to the left of Clinton on foreign policy; Webb was to the left of her on trade and foreign policy; Lessig was to the left of her on economic policy; O'Malley and Sanders were to the left of her on trade, economics, and foreign policy (all issues). The truth is, for a Democrat, Clinton is rather conservative.

Also, could you please explain how Senator Joe Manchin is to the right of Clinton? He has been consistently against the Iraq War and Obama's military intervention abroad; he has consistently opposed free trade deals, including the TPP. and he has called for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics since before Clinton was in the race.

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Al Gore is to the right of Hillary Clinton? On climate change, he receives money from the fossil fuel industry (of course not; he is not even in politics anymore)? He voted for Iraq (he was against it, while Clinton was for it)? He ran in 2000 on expanding Social Security; Clinton has supported the chained CPI cuts to Social Security. Joe Biden? Seriously? You genuinely believe MOST Democratic Congress members are to the right of Clinton. Now I think you might be a troll.

Biden voted for the Iraq War. He was in favor of the 1994 crime bill. He had major ties to the credit card industries and the banking industries. The list goes on. His voting record in the Senate was way to the right of Hillary's. Her voting record was in the more liberal half of the Democratic caucus. Look it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/us/politics/banking-ties-could-hurt-joe-biden-in-race-with-populist-overtone.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

I realize your ilk give him a pass for stuff you'd string up Hillary over because he is a man, but don't expect to not get called out for it.

That's not true. I am aware that Clinton was rather progressive as a Senator (the 11th most progressive; Sanders was the most progressive Senator), and that Biden, at one time, voted in a more conservative manner than Clinton. Biden has become more progressive as VP, however. Clinton has become more progressive in rhetoric, but it is painfully obvious that the reason for that is because she had a strong challenger in Bernie Sanders.

[IceSpear]

So Biden became more progressive as VP...and Hillary became more progressive since leaving SoS. Yes, they're both shifting in the direction of the party's overall tide. I don't see the difference. You can't assume good faith on Biden's part and bad faith on Hillary's without any solid evidence. Don't forget he also wanted to run for president, and only backed out because he didn't see a path to victory.

Also, Hillary was very clearly shifting to the left almost immediately after beginning her campaign, back when Sanders was still polling at 3% and nobody outside of Vermont knew who he was.

[Santander]

Also, could you please explain how Senator Joe Manchin is to the right of Clinton? He has been consistently against the Iraq War and Obama's military intervention abroad; he has consistently opposed free trade deals, including the TPP. and he has called for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics since before Clinton was in the race.

Uh... he's more conservative than Clinton on practically everything.

[Suck my caulk]

So Biden became more progressive as VP...and Hillary became more progressive since leaving SoS. Yes, they're both shifting in the direction of the party's overall tide. I don't see the difference. You can't assume good faith on Biden's part and bad faith on Hillary's without any solid evidence. Don't forget he also wanted to run for president, and only backed out because he didn't see a path to victory.

Also, Hillary was very clearly shifting to the left almost immediately after beginning her campaign, back when Sanders was still polling at 3% and nobody outside of Vermont knew who he was.

I think Sanders sped up Clinton's process of shifting leftward, but she was shifting from the beginning, because she saw how she lost in 2008 by being too conservative for the overall primary electorate. I take your point, however. I do not assume good faith on Biden's part; I just know that Biden is not running for President, and that his foreign policy has been lesss interventionist (therefore, more progressive) than Clinton's since being VP. If anything, as Secretary of State, Clinton became more militant.

[Maxwell]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

[Doimper]

Also, could you please explain how Senator Joe Manchin is to the right of Clinton?

somebody please put me out of my misery

[IceSpear]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

And enthusiastically endorsed her extremely early in 2007. lol

I guess only male politicians are allowed to genuinely "evolve." Women who do so are just power hungry opportunist shill bitches.

[Suck my caulk]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

I am aware of that. It is also no secret that O'Malley endorsed Clinton over Obama in 2008. He changed/evolved/lied/flip-flopped/pivoted (choose your word) on several issues over his tenure as Maryland Governor, however, and he became extremely progressive as Governor with respect to taxation, marriage equality, gun control, marijuana, immigration, etc. His climate change/energy plan in the primary season was so progressive, he made Bernie Sanders look moderate (completely renewable by 2030). O'Malley actually has a track record to show how his thinking and policies changed. He started out as a New Democrat, but he has evolved into a progressive. Clinton is the opposite. She used to be a progressive, when her husband was a New Democrat, and she was quite progressive as a Senator. In the interim period between running for President in 2008 and 2015 when her rhetoric shifted sharply to the left, however, Clinton was quite conservative (dare I say, quite right-wing, something which has earned me a lot of hatred on this forum). I would go as far as to say that Clinton was a New Democrat from her time leaving the Senate until she received stiff competition to her left in the form of Bernie Sanders.

[Suck my caulk]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

And enthusiastically endorsed her extremely early in 2007. lol

I guess only male politicians are allowed to genuinely "evolve." Women who do so are just power hungry opportunist shill bitches.

I did not say that; you did. Who brought up Clinton's gender before IceSpear? I am so sexist that I will be "throwing away" a vote on Dr. Jill Stein, who I know will not win, but who has at least offered me a genuinely progressive platform that I can enthusiastically vote for.

[Mr. Morden]

Guys, can you please take this dumb debate somewhere else?  Trying to keep up with the VP news here.  

Booker, Brown, Kaine, and Perez not responding to questions about whether they’re being vetted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-is-vetting-three-for-vice-president--and-is-still-studying-a-longer-list/2016/06/21/548fedc0-37cb-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That story also mentions something which hadn’t really occurred to me before, and I now feel like an idiot for not thinking of it earlier: It’s not just Massachusetts that provides for a special election within a few months if there’s a Senate vacancy.  New Jersey does too.  Booker himself was elected in a special election after Lautenberg’s death.  So if Warren being picked is on the table because her seat could be filled by special election within a few months, I guess the same applies to Booker.

[Gustaf]

While Morden is right, I'd just like to highlight that it's incorrect  that Clinton lost the 2008 primary due to being too conservative.

[Mr. Morden]

Latest example of Corker criticizing Trump, which again suggests that he’s now probably on the outs with respect to the VP race, despite having been considered one of the favorites a few weeks ago:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/corker-warns-trump-to-stop-slurs-and-innuendo-deflects-vp-speculation.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Suck my caulk]

While Morden is right, I'd just like to highlight that it's incorrect  that Clinton lost the 2008 primary due to being too conservative.

I am going to stop this debate as Mr. Morden requests. What I meant by that was that Obama outflanked Clinton on the left, using their differences over the Iraq War and Clinton's former Walmart ties and opposition to unions to defeat her in the primary. She was more conservative than Obama and happened to lose; I would not be surprised if that was a part of it.

[Holmes]

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/22/hillary-clinton-coming-to-cincinnati-monday-with-elizabeth-warren/86232138/

Clinton is holding a rally with Warren in Cincinatti. I think she may be gauging public interest for Warren as a running mate in a swing state.

[Dr. Arch]

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/22/hillary-clinton-coming-to-cincinnati-monday-with-elizabeth-warren/86232138/

Clinton is holding a rally with Warren in Cincinatti. I think she may be gauging public interest for Warren as a running mate in a swing state.

Yep. That's the impression I get too.

[Likely Voter]

I don't think Clinton will name warren as VP because in a way, she doesn't need to. Warren seems to be the biggest Clinton surrogate right now. She is fundraising for Clinton, she released a video with moveon.org on how Trump is a business fraud the same day Clinton gave her speech on Trump and the economy. She visited Clinton's office to pump up the troops. She is essentially already giving Clinton all the things they need from her on the ticket so does Clinton really need to actually add her to the ticket? If Clinton named someone else would Warren stop being a super-surrogate? I doubt it. She is reasserting herself as the leader of the progressives in the Senate, the position she had before Bernie got in. 
 
I still think Clinton will go with Kaine. He is qualified, he has good relationship with Clinton, he gives a swing state boost and there is no GOP gov issue. It is the ultimate easy decision pick.

[Holmes]

That's an interesting take. I was thinking all this surrogacy and all her speaking out against Trump is her trying to show that she can do the job, that she's willing. I never thought that it could potentially backfire because she's doing so well at it outside of the role as VP that she can continue to do it without being the running mate. But I do think that not picking Warren at this point, after everything she's done and how well she takes down Trump would bring some people down.

[Likely Voter]

I'm not sure 'backfire' is the right way to look at Warren's effort if she doesnt' get VP. Remember in the pre-Bernie days everyone talked about Warren running. She was polling 2nd behind Clinton. She was the queen of the progressives. Then she didn't run and Bernie stepped in and in a way for over a year people kind of stopped paying much attention to Warren, short of wondering if she would endorse Bernie. In the last few weeks she has been reasserting herself, so being a Clinton super-surrogate is in her self-interest, regardless of being named Veep nominee.

[Confused Democrat]

It's being reported that Hillary Clinton is coming to Cincinnati Monday with Elizabeth Warren.

Hmmm.....

[Illiniwek]

It's being reported that Hillary Clinton is coming to Cincinnati Monday with Elizabeth Warren.

Hmmm.....

Rowdy. Leeeeeeee-gooooooo

[fenrir]

That's an interesting take. I was thinking all this surrogacy and all her speaking out against Trump is her trying to show that she can do the job, that she's willing. I never thought that it could potentially backfire because she's doing so well at it outside of the role as VP that she can continue to do it without being the running mate. But I do think that not picking Warren at this point, after everything she's done and how well she takes down Trump would bring some people down.

I'm not sure 'backfire' is the right way to look at Warren's effort if she doesnt' get VP. Remember in the pre-Bernie days everyone talked about Warren running. She was polling 2nd behind Clinton. She was the queen of the progressives. Then she didn't run and Bernie stepped in and in a way for over a year people kind of stopped paying much attention to Warren, short of wondering if she would endorse Bernie. In the last few weeks she has been reasserting herself, so being a Clinton super-surrogate is in her self-interest, regardless of being named Veep nominee.

Warren's always had punchy, deconstructed-but-still-cohesive attacks on the right. I'm not sure if this is more of the same or if she's really making some sort of move.

I'd very loosely agree with the "backfire" label and extend that to the VP question---I think Warren's message is too populist and focused to be Clinton's VP, to the point where she would upstage Clinton or co-opt her message. Clinton doesn't really have super-specific economic talking points, much less ones that get an angry, populist crowd going like Trump, Sanders, or Warren. Her most specific policies are on social issues.

[Holmes]

Well, I think Warren would work well as Clinton's running mate. She's not Sanders. She's a loyal Democrat and she tows the party line.  She stays on message. I wouldn't worry about her going "rogue" or whatever.