I'm pretty dissapointed in D's not challenging HRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP. Any Dem with any amount of spotlight treats the HRC nomination as an obvious inevitability. Even if it is, it's such obvious brown-nosing (I'll never get a spot in the Cabinet if I don't sing her praises!) it's kind of nauseating. Keith Ellison, who seems fairly self-sufficient, pulled that crap on This Week yesterday. Lame.

It's less about that (brown, klobuchar, gillibrand are not going to get good enough cabinet spots to pull them away from the senate) and more about the fear of clinton machine/donors if/when they need them for a future run.

It's pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had to choose between a dishonest Democrat (HRC) and a moderate Republican who has a measure of integrity, I'd vote for the latter.

There aren't any moderate Republicans running.

Pataki

No shit, I had no idea he was even running. Lol!

My DH has been looking for a moderate Republican to vote for since he was legally able to vote (1998). The first couple times he wrote in cartoon characters. Then he moved to VA, and has sucked it up and voted Dem since. Not a Hillary fan, but the thought of a Republican president plus Republican controlled Congress scares even him. Part of it is purely out of self interest, he's a Fed employee.

Exactly! Trump and the others are getting all the media attention and candidates like Pataki get none, to the point that people don't even know they are running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the real HRC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/

Here's a summary of the column for others: It basically says that because Clinton has accepted money from wealthy donors and PACs, she cannot creibly claim to want to reduce the influence of money on the political process. "Sanders’ campaign is exclusively voter-financed. “I am raising money from small individual contributions,” he told CBS’s John Dickerson. “I don’t have a super PAC. I don’t want money from the billionaires. And that’s the way we’re going to run our campaign.” Sanders’ reliance on individual contributions for campaign funding means he’s beholden to thousands of voters, to the people, not to a handful of corporate backers. In short, it means he’s an authentic populist." In effect, the column is a love letter to Bernie Sanders, and a completely unrealistic proposal. It's like saying Clinton should refuse to travel in gasoline-powered vehicles while campaigning, to prove her environmental bona fides. Interesting challenge, but it would basically doom her (and any candidate) to losing in the name of an idealistic principle that the candidate doesn't even espouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real HRC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/

Here's a summary of the column for others: It basically says that because Clinton has accepted money from wealthy donors and PACs, she cannot creibly claim to want to reduce the influence of money on the political process. "Sanders’ campaign is exclusively voter-financed. “I am raising money from small individual contributions,” he told CBS’s John Dickerson. “I don’t have a super PAC. I don’t want money from the billionaires. And that’s the way we’re going to run our campaign.” Sanders’ reliance on individual contributions for campaign funding means he’s beholden to thousands of voters, to the people, not to a handful of corporate backers. In short, it means he’s an authentic populist." In effect, the column is a love letter to Bernie Sanders, and a completely unrealistic proposal. It's like saying Clinton should refuse to travel in gasoline-powered vehicles while campaigning, to prove her environmental bona fides. Interesting challenge, but it would basically doom her (and any candidate) to losing in the name of an idealistic principle that the candidate doesn't even espouse.

All the more reason to pass campaign finance reform legislation. More effort is spent on campaigning and fundraising than on serving the people.

That is their job...right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real HRC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/

Here's a summary of the column for others: It basically says that because Clinton has accepted money from wealthy donors and PACs, she cannot creibly claim to want to reduce the influence of money on the political process. "Sanders’ campaign is exclusively voter-financed. “I am raising money from small individual contributions,” he told CBS’s John Dickerson. “I don’t have a super PAC. I don’t want money from the billionaires. And that’s the way we’re going to run our campaign.” Sanders’ reliance on individual contributions for campaign funding means he’s beholden to thousands of voters, to the people, not to a handful of corporate backers. In short, it means he’s an authentic populist." In effect, the column is a love letter to Bernie Sanders, and a completely unrealistic proposal. It's like saying Clinton should refuse to travel in gasoline-powered vehicles while campaigning, to prove her environmental bona fides. Interesting challenge, but it would basically doom her (and any candidate) to losing in the name of an idealistic principle that the candidate doesn't even espouse.

All the more reason to pass campaign finance reform legislation. More effort is spent on campaigning and fundraising than on serving the people.

That is their job...right?

Sure, that makes sense. And if all candidates (Clinton, Bush, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Walker) could come together and agree to limit campaign contributions, and could shut down the PAC money, then that would be great. But the column was essentially suggesting that Clinton should unilaterally disarm, and hope for the best. Disarmament is not realistic unless all combatants put down their guns. Otherwise, you just get shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real HRC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/

Here's a summary of the column for others: It basically says that because Clinton has accepted money from wealthy donors and PACs, she cannot creibly claim to want to reduce the influence of money on the political process. "Sanders’ campaign is exclusively voter-financed. “I am raising money from small individual contributions,” he told CBS’s John Dickerson. “I don’t have a super PAC. I don’t want money from the billionaires. And that’s the way we’re going to run our campaign.” Sanders’ reliance on individual contributions for campaign funding means he’s beholden to thousands of voters, to the people, not to a handful of corporate backers. In short, it means he’s an authentic populist." In effect, the column is a love letter to Bernie Sanders, and a completely unrealistic proposal. It's like saying Clinton should refuse to travel in gasoline-powered vehicles while campaigning, to prove her environmental bona fides. Interesting challenge, but it would basically doom her (and any candidate) to losing in the name of an idealistic principle that the candidate doesn't even espouse.

I read it differently: HRC is as beholden to special interests as are many of the Republicans who are running and this makes it unlikely that we will see any meaningful changes if she does become president.

All of her talk about reform is just fluff.

[takoma]

One distinction is that Hillary's money has mostly gone to the campaign, which I think is more transparent than the PACs that get most of the GOP money. See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

[Anonymous]

Bumping this up because I think it is silly these D's didn't decide to jump in.

A D with a backbone (bernie unfortunately won't go negative) could take HRC on - she's a terrible politician and the email story is snowballing.

surely some of the ones listed in the OP (and others) have to be thinking of making a move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bumping this up because I think it is silly these D's didn't decide to jump in.

A D with a backbone (bernie unfortunately won't go negative) could take HRC on - she's a terrible politician and the email story is snowballing.

surely some of the ones listed in the OP (and others) have to be thinking of making a move.

You're bumping this up because you think it's silly the other Dems didn't jump in and, what, you think they read this forum and you will somehow persuade them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping this up because I think it is silly these D's didn't decide to jump in.

A D with a backbone (bernie unfortunately won't go negative) could take HRC on - she's a terrible politician and the email story is snowballing.

surely some of the ones listed in the OP (and others) have to be thinking of making a move.

You're bumping this up because you think it's silly the other Dems didn't jump in and, what, you think they read this forum and you will somehow persuade them?

no not for them - just saying that its getting clearer by the day that more D's should've mounted a credible challenge instead of a 'coronation' of a potentially poisoned matriarch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping this up because I think it is silly these D's didn't decide to jump in.

A D with a backbone (bernie unfortunately won't go negative) could take HRC on - she's a terrible politician and the email story is snowballing.

surely some of the ones listed in the OP (and others) have to be thinking of making a move.

You're bumping this up because you think it's silly the other Dems didn't jump in and, what, you think they read this forum and you will somehow persuade them?

no not for them - just saying that its getting clearer by the day that more D's should've mounted a credible challenge instead of a 'coronation' of a potentially poisoned matriarch.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. D's don't think HRC is a coronation. Bernie Sanders is currently ahead of HRC in New Hampshire and continues to gain momentum.

[Anonymous]

LOL! - I didn't see what forum this was in and totally clicked to read about OP's daughter not being challenged in her highly regarded charter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BIDEN 2016!

Enjoy the war with Iran.