eriposte..are you saying that Sirota cherry-picked Clinton statements to make her look bad, when the truth is that her position and actions to date are sound policy?
Posted by T2 at November 13, 2007 06:32 AMSad - very sad. You find it of no concern that a major leader in the Democratic Party is voting for a job-killing trade pact that not a single major labor, environmental, human rights, anti-poverty, religious or consumer protection group is supporting. In some ways its typical - the Netroots can't stop wearing its bourgeois class on its sleeve. That is, it doesn't really care much about working-class issues. But it is a sad commentary.
Posted by David Sirota at November 13, 2007 06:40 AMMr. Sirota...didn't Hillary just get a major labor union endorsement? That would seem an odd way to reward a candidate for OKing a "job-killing trade pact", wouldn't it?
Posted by T2 at November 13, 2007 06:45 AMT2,
I am merely pointing out three things.
1. Clinton is a Senator and she cannot implement any "time-outs" on trade agreements today because that is the prerogative of the President. She has said she would like to implement "time-outs" when she is President. So, I see no "talking out of both sides of her mouth" in her expressed position.
2. She supported the Peru agreement but did not support three others. That was not evident from David's post and I thought readers should have the full context to evaluate her actions.
3. It is up to every one of you to decide whether her positions reflect sound policy or double-talk or not based on all the information I have provided in the post.
Posted by eriposte at November 13, 2007 06:47 AMDavid,
I have always respected the work you do on behalf of labor but I am saddened that you would represent my post as somehow reflecting a complete lack of concern for labor. This post is about your statements and representation of Senator Clinton's position - not about my position on whether her policy is good for labor or not. Your statement that this post is somehow reflective that "the Netroots can't stop wearing its bourgeois class on its sleeve. That is, it doesn't really care much about working-class issues" is unfortunate because that is an attempt to deflect from the actual focus of this post - which is that your diary made Sen. Clinton look much worse on her positions than she is. I'm not claiming Senator Clinton is perfect - but if we want to have a real debate in this election, we should do that by providing all the facts and all the context to people so that they can make up their minds.
Posted by eriposte at November 13, 2007 06:52 AMI hope some constructive dialogue comes out of these posts, eri.
I'm most interested in the ones about what "liar" Clinton is, because I agree this is what can hurt Clinton most in the general election.
eriposte...that's what I thought you meant. People cherry-pick info to support their particular point of view and sometimes exclude info that does not. That seems to be pretty much human nature, especially in the political arena. I think we've seen that in abundance during the Bush regime and we'll see tons of it during the campaign. Post like yours are helpful in keeping the playing field level.
Posted by T2 at November 13, 2007 07:22 AMA good discussion and a good post. It was important to point out the fact Hilary does not support the other agreements. However in the case of free trade agreements with 3rd world nations like Peru any naive belief that Peruvian workers or its massive underclass will somehow benefit from this agreement is as likely as Richard Cheney joining the ACLU soon. My main beef with free trade agreements with such nations is that they are overwhelmingly favorable to multinationals in the USA (see Walmart,mining interests, and Conagra, etc.) and to the usual elites who control the assets and politics in nations like Peru.
Posted by leftymn at November 13, 2007 07:27 AMSad that David Sirota has become so abusive lately when Clinton is discussed. I've gotten a bit cautious about reading his diaries because of the obvious cherry picking. Thanks, eriposte, for pointing out this particularly egregious example.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2007 07:34 AMRelevant to the discussion is whether the Peru agreement is good. What groups supported it? What groups opposed it?
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 13, 2007 12:30 PMI'd settle for what groups actually read it?
I'd settle for what groups actually read it?
Kaching!!
*smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2007 02:47 PMEriposte acknowledged....
"She supported the Peru agreement..."
Hmm. What exactly was the point of your argument again? She's not President now, but when she is President, she'll put a 'time-out' on these kinds of issues. But right now, its okay to support it because...why...she's not President now?
Sounds like you're asking me to take a leap of "FAITH (TM)" in believing that she won't support the things she supports now when she is President. Kind of like that whole Iraq 'thing' that she also supported while not being President.
Posted by Tampa Student at November 13, 2007 08:48 PMBTW, in response to our last exchange a few weeks ago; now is absolutely the right time to examine Hillary's positions -- in theory, we are in the process of choosing who represents the Democratic Party.
Perhaps a little less relativism is in order at this stage. Its a little late once one of them wins the nomination, don't you think?
Not that I believe there's a snowball's chance in Iraq that a non-DLC candidate could win the Democratic primary....or that my vote in the Florida Democratic Primary would be anything more than academic when it finally comes time to cast it. I guess I'm supposed to move to Iowa or New Hampshire if I want to effect any change in the party, eh?
Posted by Tampa Student at November 13, 2007 08:56 PMWhile everyone thinks they need to examine Hillary with a Microscope -- note that Obama is the neocon go to guy. Should we not examine the Media's choice of a candidate being they are the ones who pushed for Bush?
Posted by s hall at November 14, 2007 04:06 AMTampa Student,
I'm not sure I can be any clearer. There are two separate issues.
One is whether she can implement a "time out" now. She can't because only the President can implement a "time out".
The second is how she votes as a Senator on deals that the President has *already concluded* with other countries like Peru or other countries. A "time-out" is irrelevant here because the deal is done from the President's standpoint and all she can say now is whether she supports or opposes the deal. Her calling a "time-out" on a deal already concluded by the President will only be met with ridicule because Congress will vote on it and move on.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
Posted by eriposte at November 14, 2007 05:54 AM"Her calling a "time-out" on a deal already concluded by the President will only be met with ridicule because Congress will vote on it and move on.
That is precisely the point. You're quite correct that the vote was/is nothing more than academic by the time she was able to approve or dissent. All the more reason to vote your conscience. You say she'll be 'ridiculed'. I say she DID vote her conscience. But let's ask, if I'm wrong and she is really opposed to the bill, then I am to "trust" that she'll be..what...less afraid to vote her conscience and less afraid of 'ridicule' once she is President?
Exactly how brave does one have to be to voice their opinion when nobody really cares what they have to say on the matter (i.e. a moot vote)?
Posted by Tampa Student at November 14, 2007 06:10 PMTampa Student,
Why is it so difficult to understand simple English? She did not oppose the Peru deal. She supported it. Which is why she is voting yes on it.
She opposed three other deals with three other countries.
She also wants to impose a time out on new deals once she becomes President so that she gets more time to analyze the costs and benefits of any NEW deals that might become possible after she becomes President.
Posted by eriposte at November 14, 2007 10:22 PMApparently, those who have decided to be critical of Hillary Clinton for a "time out" have not quite got the proposition correct that she has laid out. For the last time she is not advocating a "time out" because she intends to call for one at this time, however, if elected when she would be in the position to spearhead a "time out" she would. Obviously, her position on this is not confusing except to the confused. And by referencing her position on the vote to go to war against Iraq, she, like so many others had no reason to question the intelligence findings and made the same mistake the majority of Congressmen made. That was then and this is now so my question is knowing what we know now why do we have so many holding up the end to this war by continuing to support what was a lie in the first place? It would seem they have fallen in with the ranks of the confused.
Posted by robertmachado at November 16, 2007 10:58 PM