Can someone please explain why someone would call their blog, 'The Left Coaster' when all it seems to be about is promoting Hillary's candidacy? Maybe the writer is too young to remember things like the 'welfare reform' bill that the Clintons got passed with overwhelming Republican support (and over great protest from the left). Ever heard of NAFTA? Ever Heard of Sanford Weil and his deals with the Clintons, or how about the fact that Goldman Sachs has always been The Clinton's biggest contributor year after year. Everybody knows she voted with Bush on the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. Hillary is a complete tool of Wall Street, The CFR, and The Israeli lobby, and corporate America as a whole. The fact that she can masquerade as a progressive person from the left is a testament to the stupidity of the American people. Other than being for abortion rights, what actually has she done that would be considered progressive? Sure she plays lip service to some issues dear to the left; but it's only lip service. Her priorities have always aligned with whatever the big NY Insurance firms want. Her so-called health care reform plan is a huge gift to the Insurance companies. It looks to me like they actually wrote most of it for her. She's all talk. She pretends to feel the pain of all kinds of disaffected and abused groups, and then she goes and votes to hurt them some more. As for workers rights; talk to the Whitehouse Travel staff about that. She gets wonderous stock tips too. The head of the college Republicans during her college years is a leftist now? Wake up!
Posted by Joe Ryan at December 29, 2007 11:22 AMJoe,
It's always refreshing to get comments from members of the Straight-Talking Reality-Based Community who reveal the Evil Hillary Clinton without fail. Kinda makes it obvious why I end up writing about Clinton more than others, doesn't it?
Other than the fact that this blog has people who support Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich (among others), you may have missed this but most people have been talking about Clinton, Edwards and Obama given the close races in Iowa, NH and so on. Also, please do share which candidate meets all your requirements.
Also make sure you read Paul Krugman at least once in a while (unless of course he is also owned by the "Israel lobby") - especially when it comes to healthcare. For example:
--------
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/oy-kos/
Markos writes:
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates
Stop right there!
The Edwards and Clinton proposals actually include a public option — that is, people can buy into a Medicare-type plan administered by the government. They are not forced to go to private insurance companies. In fact, the public option was what originally made people like myself and Ezra Klein enthusiastic about the Edwards plan.
The Obama plan includes a public option for everyone as well — but thereby hangs a tale. You see, when it was first announced, it didn’t: the public option was there only for selected groups — others would have to go with private insurance companies. It was only after several days of hectoring from progressive health care wonks that the Obama people said, in effect, “OK, we’ll make it available to everyone.” I was told that they really hadn’t thought about that — which is amazing, considering how important the public option is. (the Edwards campaign has been clear in stating that it might eventually lead to a single-payer system.)
This was one of the episodes that led health wonks I talk to to conclude that Obama may just not be that committed to universal care.
This gets once again at what I keep trying to tell people: on health care, Obama is consistently running to the right of his rivals.
And it’s deeply disappointing to have influential bloggers buying into the bizarre notion that trying to make a health care plan truly universal is somehow a gift to the insurance companies.
-----------
Bill Clinton was the greatest REPUBLICAN president in my lifetime. Hillary is to the right of Bill. Hillary is a Republican. Stop pretending otherwise.
Posted by green heron at December 29, 2007 11:56 AMCheck out Lambert's post at Correntewire for a good summary of Obama. Paul Krugman thinks it worth sending people to.
Posted by Horselover Fat at December 29, 2007 12:15 PM"What actually has she done that would be considered progressive?"
She was chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, where she brilliantly fought off President Reagan's attempt to wipe out legal services for the poor and transfer its $300 million funding into defense spending. She stopped Newt Gingrich from taking over the country.
"Her so-called health care reform plan is a huge gift to the Insurance companies."
Straight out of Daily Kos. Not worth refuting. But yes, Krugman calls this theory bizarre. Intellectually dishonest would be a better description.
"The head of the college Republicans during her college years is a leftist now?"
No, she's not a leftist now - she's a mature, result-oriented progressive. She was a leftist at Yale Law School, where she studied under 'Tommie the Commie' Emerson, monitored the trial of Bobby Seale, and edited the Review of Law and Social Action. I don't know for sure that she rejected the Yale Law Journal to edit the more progressive RLSA -- she surely was smart enough to make Law Journal. My bet is she turned her nose up at the super-elistist Law Journal.
She also worked for George McGovern's campaign. McGovern is now returning the favor, but hey, what does he know? What does RFK Jr. know?
Hillary Clinton, Cultural Marxist
Posted by whoframedrudy at December 29, 2007 01:44 PMWho would have thunk that I could run for the Presidency. (No smart comments from the trolls please).
Posted by Judith at December 29, 2007 02:20 PMIf Obama had any foreign policy creds, he lost them when he got burned in effigy in Pakistan this summer for threatening to invade Pakistan.
Obama would move Iraq troops to " the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
FROM A COMMENT AT THE STORY:
....this statement by Obama shows me he does not have long-term thinking or an idea of consequences, just like GWB. Who wants to risk war with a country that has nuclear weapons and can spread that knowledge to all of its Muslim neighbours in a snap? I sure as hell don't. Obama has lost my vote.
---------------------
Pakistani reaction:
By Teeth Maestro on Aug 3, 2007 in International, Pakistan
Barak Obama [in July] announced to the American voters that once elected as the President of United States of America he will adopt a get-tough policy on terrorism and will be determined to invade Pakistan if required to stop terrorism.
....
Over the six years the Americans have waged a war in Afghanistan, then walked into Iraq and are after getting bored, plan for an outright attack on Pakistan, in pursuit of a ghost which evades them at every move.
The Pakistan trump card for Obama, does not represent human beings living across the world but merely represents a vote bank, and his feeble attempt to reinvigorate the highly criticized soft foreign policy, to show that he can also play the tough-cop bad-cop routine.
....
As for Obama, I can only pray that good sense prevails over the American voters and he never sees daylight beyond the primaries in November.
Hillary is a progressive? Really?!
So, it is now a progressive position to talk about bombing other countries to bring them into compliance with American wishes?
So, indicating that one would consider a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country is now something progressives do?
So, significantly increasing the size of the military is a progressive thing?
So, significantly increasing the military budget is a progressive thing?
Wow! I guess I have had a serious misconception of what progressive means!
Posted by Shirin at December 29, 2007 11:23 PMOh, yes, and since we are talking about Pakistan here:
"Clinton paid a personal tribute to the former Pakistani prime minister, and also turned on President Pervez Musharraf, saying he had failed both to usher Pakistan towards democracy, and to crush Al-Qaeda and the Taliban."
So, Hillary starts by paying a personal tribute to the corrupt Benazir, who nurtured and sponsored the Taliban into power, and then attacks Musharraf for failing to crush them. Now THERE's consistency!
No to Hillary! No to Obama!
Posted by Shirin at December 29, 2007 11:28 PMAnother great post eriposte. The anti-HRC sloganeering on the kos site has driven many away. You back up what you say. It's a joy to read. I'm just as happy to read posts that I disagree with as those with which I agree, unfortunately the tenor of political discussion on the internet has been weaker and weaker as of late. Thanks for the well argued piece.
Posted by j at December 30, 2007 05:42 AMI just read a good analysis of the voting records of the candidates on this site. I thought I should post a link here.
http://quinnell.us/index.php/all?blog=1&title=i_support_hillary_clinton&page=1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&disp=single#c143766
as it turns out HRC's voting record is more progressive than Obama's, Feingold's or Dodd's.
Posted by j at December 30, 2007 05:52 AMAlso make sure you read Paul Krugman at least once in a while (unless of course he is also owned by the "Israel lobby") - especially when it comes to healthcare.
Why must we read Paul Krugman? Is he some god of righteous opinion? There are 300 million or so people in this country and I fail to understand why his opinion is so valuable and indispensable that Anyone needs to be sure to read him. Out of curiosity, I followed your link; and what I found was a thoroughly disreputable straw-man hack job done on a person that was abused by a amputated quote that distorted the meaning of what they were saying. But before I read his latest gem, I had read an article called 'Mandates and Mudslinging' where he deceptively morphs two distinct advocacy groups ('advocates of Universal Care', and 'advocates of Health Care reform') together in order to support his theme. So sorry, I won't be sure to read anymore Krugman.
As for your comment implying I wouldn't read Krugman's points about Health Care due to some unrelated campaign donations made to Hillary by the Israeli Lobby; I can only say that you are arguing like a scoundrel with no class. Do you have some argument to make that will convince me and others that the Clinton's have not consistently been supported by the Israeli Lobby and that they have not done AIPAC's bidding, or are you just going to call me an anti-semite and be done with it. That shows a lot of class and intellectual depth dude.
Dear Whoframedrudy: I was actually referring to something that happened in the last 20 years or so (McGovern, Bobby Seale?, cmon). Resume building and showing up at the right places to feel peoples pain (after sticking ones' finger in the air and deciding the wind is blowing in a Democratic party direction) does not qualify one as a progressive.
I see your another easily led fan of the legendary Paul Krugman. Wow, what a God of journalism he must be. I must be wrong because - after all - Paul Krugman says I am.
Oh, and your soooo brilliant that you have somehow deciphered that all my thoughts and ideas have flowed like static electricity from Kos brain into Mine. Gosh, I thought that when I linked to Markos's comments tonight I had visited the Kos sight for the first time in my life; but I must be wrong because, after all, you would know better than me what I read and where I form my opinions. you must be so brilliant you can channel people's thoughts and tell them what they are thinking. Congratulations!
The two of you would make a great couple; but, since Poste branded me as an anti-semite just because I said 'Hillary is a tool of the Israeli lobby', perhaps his channeling system needs a new antenna.