We can do better than Hillary.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 07:02 AMHillary is an intelligent (unlike Bush), caring (unlike Bush), hard working (unlike Bush), and listening (unlike Bush) Senator. She would make a great President, but unfortunately there's just too much hatred for the Clintons for her to be elected.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 07:05 AMI agree with the above in that Sen. Clinton would be a bad choice if you want an electible Democrat in the White House. The well of hatred against the Clintons runs too deep. It is time to move on to a different generation.
Posted by gtash at March 12, 2006 07:11 AMCookie,
I don't hate the Clintons. I worked on both of President Clinton''s campaigns and stood by him during the GOP-led witchhunt over lying about a blow-job.
You are correct: Sen. Clinton is smart, capable and has served her constituency in New York well.
But she's a DINO. A Vichy Dem. And I'm tired of DINO democrats like her, Cousin Kerry, Bush-loving Lieberman, and MBNA Biden representing my party.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 07:13 AMUh, we do have a well-funded "Centrist" party. It is called the DLC Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party, as it stands, is not "Left" or "Liberal" as the MSM and the RNC portrays it.
There are some Liberal Democrats, those are the ones who have my support.
MSM portrays the Democratic Party as far Left. It is a myth. A bullshit myth.
Listen, the Dems care about what middle America cares about (BTW, I am really pissed that Spit Matthews and Joe Scarborough now claim to speak for "middle America")
Anyhoo, Dems stand for a clean environment, good schools, fair pay, equal rights, keeping jobs in America, healthcare for all, the rule of LAW.
We have to remind people that the Dems care about what they care about.
And if we want the church vote; which we do, we need to get back to the pulpits and remind people of the teachings of Christ. Christ never said a fucking thing about homosexuality and the abortion issue was not raised until a couple of hundred years ago.
Nuns used to perform abortion for christs sake.
Abortion and Gay rights are issues that the Right uses to get people to the polls. It is all bullshit.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 07:19 AMThe problem is that Bush has set the bar so low that the country will not demand excellence from the next President. While I would prefer to see someone like Russ Feingold, he would be crucified by the press for his left-of-center leanings. A DINO (which after all is what Bill Clinton was) is probably the best we can hope for until we educate another generation of voters on what a REAL president can do.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 07:20 AMIn fiscal terms, Bush is what conservatives claim we are: a liberal.
His economic policies have grown the debt to a level never before seen in history. We're borrowing $3 billion a day to fund his excellent adventure. Bush is a "borrow and spend" new Republican.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 07:22 AMThe difference, Christopher, is that Liberals will spend taxpayer money for education, jobs, and helping the less fortunate. Bush cuts $$ for education, loses jobs, and doesn't give a shit for the less fortunate. Only his cronies are benefiting from his spending.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 07:26 AMMaybe it is because of the people that I surround myself with; but I do not see AMERICA as wanting more centrist DINO crap.
I love Clinton and I am pleased with most of what he did - but I am not happy with his trade policies. I understand what he said his reasoning was; he claims that he wanted to create trade that would increase financial situations in other Nations to decrease terrorism. He says that if there is more financial opportunity then the desire to move towards terrorism would decline (just as creating oppy for inner-city youth decreases move towards gangs.)
I believe that America is ready for someone to take back the word Liberal and create an environment which reflects its true meaning. Progressives and Liberals welcome treating all people with respect, treating the environment with respect, being open to new ideas, moving forward.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 07:31 AMThe Republicans did not accomplish their coup d'etat overnight, and neither can the Democrats restore decency and democracy overnight. Jerks like Santorum need to be defeated, even if its by an anti-choice person like Casey. As much as I would like to see a Progressive majority, it ain't gonna happen this year. We need to move from right to center before we can move to the left.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 07:35 AMIf the 22nd Amendment were repealed and he ran, I truly believe President Clinton would win a third term. This country is longing for a leader we can look to with pride versus shame, and a leader we know is working for ALL Americans versus the upper 1% of wage earners.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 07:38 AMI would vote for either Clinton in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, though, I don't think either could win. There's just too much inherent hatred for them, and the press' preoccupation with Bill's sexual encounters doesn't help.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 07:44 AMThe Republicans have nothing except Diebold and MSM.
They have raped the environment, screwed the poor, bled the treasury and rubber stamped law breaking, murder and corporate greed.
They have nothing.
Dems have a zillion platforms to run on. The first of which is transparency and honest and open government.
You know, several weeks ago, a bi-cameral group of Dems, like 100+ unveiled the "Honest and Open Leadership Act".
It was a big ceremony, people signed a pact - absofuckinglutely no MSM coverage. Saw it on the SPAN. MSM is not covering what is going on.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 07:53 AMThe Republicans have nothing except Diebold and MSM.
Don't forget the tax cuts and corporate giveaways. Huge political benefit from those. It will be very interesting to see how the candidates address the issue of the deficit and our burgeoning debt to other countries. Unfortunately, most Americans are tuned into "me, me, me" and focus on what they can get back from the government, not what the collective society must do to make this country better for all, not just the millionaire set.
Posted by ann at March 12, 2006 08:00 AMPlease, please, no more presidents from the same fuckin' family. It's embarrassing. It verges on celebrity worship, which is a big enough problem in BushAmerica.
Hillary is an excellent senator from NY; she should just say that's all she wants to be. Running another Northeastern "lib'rul" (I know she's not, but that's how she's irreversibly viewed) is the best way to minimize our chances for victory in 2008.
We didn't need another President Bush (understatement of the century), and we don't need another President Clinton.
Posted by euzoius at March 12, 2006 08:03 AMThe Clintons are almost as dirty as the Bushes. Why can't we get leadership at the national level that are not promoted by either established party? The money and corruption that are part and parcel of the status quo have their roots in the RNC and DNC.
Hillary is more of the same. I would much rather support Feingold. He seems like a man of principles....or maybe he just has a better act.
Posted by brisa at March 12, 2006 08:04 AMI would much rather support Feingold. He seems like a man of principles....or maybe he just has a better act.
Posted by brisa at March 12, 2006 08:04 AM
No, the vibe from Feingold is real. He is definately a man of principle. He is the only one who speaks in a way that is framed correctly. He does this because he is not listening to consultants.
He says that he would not run for Prez if he could get the Congress to fix the crap the Bu$hCo has screwed up.
Ann, the Repukes have the corporate money, but regular Americans do not benefit from the tax policies. If the Dems can bring it home that unless you earn over 100K per year your great big tax cut is something like $12.00.
Tax cuts do not benefit the majority of Americans.
The Repukes like to say that 40% of the people who benefit from Cap Gains tax cuts earn less that $40K a year...these people are like me and have some tiny mutual fund that earns less than shit; but I fall into that stat.
OK, Dean is on Late Edition now.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 08:36 AMTax cuts do not benefit the majority of Americans.
I know, but they think they do. If this President gets up and says all Americans get a tax break, people believe it. They don't do the math or bother to confirm the results, they just trust what he says. How much extra cash did Bush's tax cuts put in my wallet in 2006? You're correct: about $12/month. I actually did the math.
And then there are those who believe that maybe if they go along with tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, one day, maybe they'll be wealthy, too, and then they will benefit.
It's not about the reality, it's about the impression. They succeeded in convincing people that Saddam was involved in 9/11 simply by intimation. By out and out saying that tax cuts benefit everyone, the belief is hard to change even in the face of reality.
Posted by ann at March 12, 2006 09:03 AMDid I miss something or did we move off topic? Mr. Greenspan can certainly at times be a hack and should be taken with the obligatory grain of salt. He is IMHO not the great wise one he is portrayed to be. (See supporting Bush tax cuts in 2001 and his support for the privatization of social security. Cuz like he ain't gonna need it for goodness sakes .)
But I do think that he is tapping into the feelings that are out there. That being said it ain't going to mean a thing because the game is already rigged by the way our electoral process is set up. What he should be talking about is real electoral reform and public financing of elections to get the corrupting influence of money out of Washington. Like we are always reminded. “Democracy is not free” The ironic thing has always been that we as a nation just don't want to pay for it. We'd rather have the corporation pay up and not the tax payer. The funny thing is it seems to me that the nation always ends up paying much more in the end and until the folks wake up to those facts things will never change.
And add to that the fact that with the big money connection these folks cater to it makes me realize that is never going to happen.
That my .02
Oh and I do whole hearted agree with euzious point about presidents from the same family. It really is starting to get a bit creepy and weird in that royal family incestuous kinda way.
Posted by Mike at March 12, 2006 09:07 AMDid I miss something or did we move off topic?
First Amendment Zone = Open Thread. At least that's how I've always understood it.
Posted by ann at March 12, 2006 09:28 AMCentrist? I have a lot of contempt for that word. What does it mean? Is it just the Goldilocks idea - you know, not too hot, not too cold, but just right on my personal ad hoc issues?
What we need, I think, is a party that can create a solid, coherent, overarching, easily understandable philosophy from which its issue stances predictably derive. The philosophy should be seriously intellectual, but very simple to explain in common sense terms to the American public.
Personally, I think it's high time to weave Progressivism and Libertarianism into one coherent ideology for the 21st Century. Interested in helping my admittedly tiny group do so? Please click my name.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at March 12, 2006 09:39 AMmy bad.. sorry
Posted by Mike at March 12, 2006 09:47 AMThe reason tax cuts go to the upper 50%, is because over the years, tax laws have changed so that the lower 50% doesn't pay any taxes. How can you cut somebody's taxes when they don't pay taxes? Maybe the next candidate should campaign on giving the poor a 100% tax cut. Since they don't pay taxes, it wouldn't mean less money to the Treasury. Zero net effect.
I know the liberals will talk about the payroll tax, but that's supposed to be a "savings account" not a source of tax revenue for the government. But since 42% of the US budget goes for entitlement programs, the "savings account" is empty.
One side effect from FDR's Social Security program was that folks immediately began saving less money. It was the beginning of a mentality shift of proving for oneself vs having the government tax somebody else to pay for it.
FDR also campaigned agains the republicans because of spending and the national debt. FDR then outspent every president before him and ran the US more into debt.
He tossed the snowball downhill, and as it rolls it just gets bigger.
Posted by muckdog at March 12, 2006 11:04 AMFDR then outspent every president before him and ran the US more into debt.
We'll just ignore those little difficulties FDR faced when he did so: the Hoover Economic Retrenchment, and Prescott Bu$h'$ Investment in German Political Parties.
Posted by pessimist at March 12, 2006 11:33 AMIt is only the uneducated half drunk people who think that you have anything useful to offer.
Posted by Anjha at March 11, 2006 02:33 PM
Muck, from now on, this is all I have to say to you. You waste my time.
Go through and read the links on yesterday's OT.
Learn something new. Open your eyes. Pull your head out of your ass.
anhja, i read those opinion pieces you linked to. how come you have to rely on opinion pieces instead of facts and figures?
i'll keep posting links to the data. you can read them or rationalize them away. your choice, i suppose.
Posted by muckdog at March 12, 2006 08:35 PMah, pmist, always a bush to blame, eh?
Posted by muckdog at March 12, 2006 08:36 PM