Again, nice job, eriposte. It was just as I suspected when I read the diary yesterday. I don't have much hope for the people determined to hate Hillary whatever the facts, but for those on the fence wondering whether the declarations of the haters are true or not, this series is a valuable reference. Now that you've shown how systematic research should be done, I wonder if Edwards and Obama backers would find a similar series debunking some of the more pervasive memes about them helpful? Thanks again and keep up the good work!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 9, 2007 08:46 AMI am very sorry, Eriposte; this time you are very far off the mark.
Hillary has adopted the Neoliberal platform of the DLC. For a sampling of their beliefs, one need only peruse the NDOL/PPI policy statements. "Free-Trade", etc.
But for the less 'wonkish' amongst you, I refer you to two very 'unrelated' bills...at least as far as the corporate media would like to have you believe; (1) the Anti-Consumer and cunningly timed Bankruptcy Bill and (2) the Iraq War resolution. She didn't attend the roll call vote for the Bankruptcy Bill as a political tactic (her DLC cohorts and think-tanks backed it)and we all know she supported (and continues to support through repeated votes to reauthorize war funding) the Iraq War.
Hillary is a Neoliberal. Unless you'd like to explain to me how (1) the DLC isn't Neoliberal or (2) how Neoliberal economic policy isn't Pro-Corporate interests, I'm afraid your refutation of 'green' points isn't sufficient to sway me.
The truth is, none of the 'leading' Democratic candidates aren't Neoliberal. Even John Edwards, although if I were forced to pick one, he'd have to be the one. But I've already said, I'm abstaining this time. The Democrats voted for the worst of the worst of the Neocon legislation over the past 8 years ('Patriot Act' amongst others). Hillary never embraced an opposition stance (quite the opposite, she voted for much of it) and no amount of spin or apology will make up for that.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 9, 2007 06:25 PMI'm feeling a bit lazy today, so my argument is half-hearted. But I had enough energy to come back to reference the following (from your previous post comments):
"If we talk about NAFTA, we should also, in the same breath point out that the Clinton administration produced 22 million jobs and had one of the longest stretches of prosperity in modern American history."
Ahem. At what cost? What KIND of jobs (a service economy and the infancy of off-shoring)? What KIND of prosperity (a tech bubble)? At what expense to people living around the world? In a single penstroke, Clinton did more for Neoliberal policy (NAFTA) than Reagan was able to accomplish in 8 years.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 9, 2007 06:42 PMI'm a Clarkie who is looking carefully at Hillary since *my* candidate has endorsed her, and none of the other Dem candidates (except Kucinich and perhaps Dodd) interest me at all -- and so I thank you for putting so much effort into this 2-part analysis of her voting record. Good work and very much appreciated.
Posted by jen at October 9, 2007 08:43 PM