I will apologize about my criticisms of Hilary IF.....

[Armstead]

...at the end of her term we actually do have universal affordable healthcare driven by medical decisions and not insurance companies

....at the end of her term we have moved out national values and policies to the correct balance of capitalism and social democracy

....at the end of her term, the power of corporations have been tamed, and we have restored the basis of a truly diverse, competative free enterprise economy that provides choice and lifts all boats equally

...at the end of her term we have trade policies that support the broad base of the US economy and all of its workers while also truly encouraging the development of strong broadly-based domestic economies in the poorer nations

....at the end of her term, the interests of main St. have superceded those of Wall St.

....at the end of her term we are long out of Iraq, and have a responsible foreign policy again

I'm very skeptical that she has either the will or ability to push us in that direction. But if I'm wrong I will happily eat many helpings of crow.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. You have a strange

concept of what Presidents can or cannot do.

[Armstead]

8. Then I guess it doesn't matter that george W Bush is our president

Nor does it matter if we elect Fred Sanford as president.

If a president has no influence, then why do any of bother to spend any time at DU? or think about politics at all?

[MonkeyFunk]

15. I didn't say they have no influence

don't be silly.

But they're not absolute dictators.

[cuke]

65. Don't confuse the issue with facts and your reasonable attitude

It's either "She's evil" or "Everything will be sunshine and puppy dogs"

[papau]

21. Power of Corporations/Wall Street curbing requires Federal only financing of elections - and USSC

says since Corporations are people and have free speech rights, and since giving money is a form of speech, they must be allowed to give money.

Only a change in the USSC will change that.

But the others are doable and I expect they will get done under Hillary.

[pnwmom]

23. It's also that your time frame is all wrong. There isn't any candidate running

or not running who could accomplish all that in four years.

[Perry Logan]

35. Delete

[venable]

52. way to embrace your candidate's promise of 'change'

someone makes a list of real change, and you say 'be realistic'.

that's exactly what we are talking about when we deride the woman as insincere.

Do you recall the words of RFK?...."ask 'why not'".

The list is reasonable, and it's exactly what any candidate with a vision would EXPECT to accomplish. But I'm talking about a real vision, not the rhetoric of the vote-seeker.

man, I hope that woman does not get the nomination. give us new, please. I'm begging on my knees.

[antigop]

2. Did I miss something? Was there a primary already? n/t

[Armstead]

9. I'm simply goiung with the poilitics of inevitability...

I hope we have another candidate at the end.

[NewHampster]

13. If we do get another candidate wouldn't that mean she wasn't inevitable?

Wouldn't it mean that the framing of this "Inevitability" fear worked for the repugs that planted it?

The only thing inevitable is death.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. do penguins eat crow?

[Armstead]

7. How about "eat my shoe"

I guess eating a similar species is a little unseemly

[2rth2pwr]

4. Which candidate can get those things done? nt

[Armstead]

10. see post 8

[cali]

5. aren't we full of ourselves today?

honestly, who cares whether you apologize now or never?

[Armstead]

11. I do and this is my keyboard

:)

[cali]

17. yes indeed, but you seem to be under the illusion that

anyone else gives a flip.

[Forkboy]

20. You start threads about what you think all the time.

Why do you think people give a flip about your opinions? :shrug:

[cali]

25. I tend not to make my OPs quite as personal as this

one, and to address things realistically. That's the difference.

[Forkboy]

26. There is no difference.

You're a poster who posts your opinions and thoughts, like all of us, and like Armstead is doing here.The only one difference I can see is how stuck on yourself you always seem to be.

[cali]

28. lol. I'm not so stuck on myself that I think it's important whether

I apologize to any given politician, but whatever.

[Armstead]

33. "When it comes to politics, I prefer realism over fantasy."

Um, that sounds kind of personal to me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Talk about being full of yourself. Good grief. nt

[Ignis]

57. Those who took the time to read it obviously give a flip.

Oh wait, that includes you!

[AlCzervik]

6. Jeebus, she's not a superhero you know, none of them are.

way to set the bar so high no one could ever reach it.

[Armstead]

12. see my post 8

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I think the voters have set the bar awfully low, for about 30 years. When we look at

Presdidents like FDR, JFK, even Johnson's "Great Society" we see that a President who wants to achieve a lot can achieve a lot.

Since Reagan, we've had Presidents who have achieved a lot for the corporations and little for the people.

Clinton couldn't even issue an executive order to intergrate the military and instead whimped out for "don't ask don't tell."

[Armstead]

34. Bingo -- You get my point

[itsrobert]

14. Chances are you won't be apologizing

But wouldn't it be sweet if you had too? This one time.

[Enrique]

16. I can guarantee that won't happen

that's an ambitious schedule for a whole generation, let alone one president's term.

[peace frog]

18. Hello!

Like anyone was waiting with bated breath for that apology anyway. :eyes:

[Demit]

19. Oooo, Utopia!

Very generous of you to give her her whole term to slay all these dragons. Nobody can say you're not a reasonable guy!

[Orangepeel]

22. there are things a president can do and things they can't do

the corporatist wing of the right wing would like to end social security, welfare and the minimum wage and flat out get rid of the EPA, OSHA and consumer safety testing. The most socially conservative would like to end public education and pass a constitutional amendment banning civil unions for gays. Bush hasn't been able to do any of that.

But he has been able to do a lot of truly awful stuff that any Democratic candidate won't do.

Will we get truly universal health care by the end of the next Democratic president's term? Probably not. But we might be able to replace the three tiered system we have (good insurance/crappy HMO/no health care) with a two tiered system where everybody has something as opposed to even less people having health care (which is what we'll probably get with a republican).

Will we get to the "correct" balance of capitalism and social democracy. Of course, it is debatable what the correct balance is, but any republican president is going to swing more heavily on the capitalism as he continues bush's habit of appointing people that think a particular federal agency shouldn't exist to head said agency.

I'm not sure we'll be completely out of Iraq by the end of the next Democratic president's terms, but I'm confident that we'll be farther out than we will be with a republican. And, although the next Democratic president might bomb additional countries, probably with UN support, he/she isn't likely to invade them.

Is Hillary, or any Democratic president going to take us all the way from where we are to utopia? Of course not. But we shouldn't make the mistake of underestimating the further damage that another republican will do that we can avoid.

[CTyankee]

46. Your post reflects a lot of my thinking on this subject. And it was a good point about

what the RWingers were NOT able to do under Bush.

My bet is that since Dems are for a more activist government, HRC (or any of our candidates) would certainly spend time, money and political energy to get reforms passed that will truly help people. Universal health care is one of them. However, the foreign policy items are going to be much harder. Like it or not, we are mired in a morass in Iraq and it's going to be really difficult to get ourselves out without enormous help from our allies. The witches brew that Bush concocted in the ME will take years of undoing.

So I fully support whoever our Dem candidate gets the nom but I know there are certain realities that will limit him/her...

[asjr]

27. Well, I won't vote for her either unless

she can transform water into wine.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. You won't have to apologize because no one will remember this thread.

Have a nice day!

[Rydz777]

30. None of that is going to happen unless we abandon our

neo-con foreign policy. And what are the odds of that?

[Voltaire99]

31. Don't worry. She doesn't have a chance in hell.

For once, the left will have to agree with the taste of NASCAR America. There are limits to how disgusted one can be with one's party, and Shock & Awe Hillary --Outsourcing Hillary, Split Every Difference Hillary -- singlehandedly defines those limits.

But go ahead, DLC sell-outs. You haven't had enough Republican control of the White House?

Then run this pro-war creature. I'll laugh at your tears in '08.

[Perry Logan]

36. Why we love Hillary-haters: "I'll laugh at your tears in '08."

Good for morale. Pleasant. Fun. Brings us all together.

[Armstead]

32. Most of the responses illustrate the problem with Clinton DLC defeatism

Apart from the allusions to my own personal insignificance, most of the responses to this illustrate exactly the problem many people have with Clintonism.

None of the responses said those are not worthy goals that I listed. Instead the common theme seems to be "A president can do nothing to bring such lofty goals about."......A logical extension is that Congress and all other political/governmental participants can do nothing either.

So you have ceded the field from the start. You've given up on ambitious goals. You have ceded the field to the corporations, the right wing and the GOP right from the beginning. You have added to the general defeatist message that we have to succumb to whatever the corporate special interests want, because politics is irrelevant.

Therefore you have reduced the significance of civic action, public policy and -- perhaps most important -- you have taken real hope out of the equation. You are basically saying that none of this matters, because there is nothing that can be done.

Going by that line of thought, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference who is in the White House or who controls Congress. By this "What do you expect?" logic, it doesn't really matter whether GW Bush is president. By your logic, nothing Bush has done has had any lasting impact on the lation in the last seven years.

I KNOW DAMN WELL THAT A PRESIDENT CAN'T JUST WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND BRING ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE. Such things have to come from the grass roots, and depend on a complex combination of public attitudes, willpower, values and desire for change. And in the "real world" of politics, compromises are necessary, and one often has to settle for half a loaf.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that politics and politicians cannot lead such forces in a particular direction. It does not mean that an ambitious agenda has to be doomed to fail from the start. Most importantly, it does not mean that we should abandon such larger goals and settle for McPolitics and hazy non-agendas.

If Ronald Reagan had been as timid and fatalistic and pessimistic as too many DLC Hillary Democrats seem to be, he would have not have bothered to pursue his conservative goals because they were "too ambitious." He would not have even thought about using his power to move the country to the right. His supporters would have had no expectations that Reagan would cut the size and scope of government and beat down liberalism.

The country is prime for anotehr reverse in course away from Corporate Consrrvatism. But only if people have the sense that it can be accomplished, and that the political process is more than just a change in the cast of characters.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Not a single person in this thread

has argued that those aren't worthy goals.

What has been repeatedly said is that the President is not a dictator, and doesn't have the power to do what you want.

You can elect Kucinich, and you still won't get what you want in the OP.

[Armstead]

39. You are echoing my point

If a president is as powerless to AT LEAST CHART A COURSE AND EFFECTIVELY MOVE IN A DIRECTION as you seem to imply, why botehr with any of this.

To repeat a point I made above, if Reagan and the GOP Right had bought into a similar line of reasoning instead of intending to lay out and succeed with an ambitious agenda in 1979-80, this would be a very different country today. He didn;t get everything he wanted, but he did have a major role in turning the country to the right based on their core ideology.

Why don't we at least attempt a similarly ambitious shift now?

[MonkeyFunk]

41. I'm not repeating your point at all....

don't be silly.

You have to change America to get what you want. It's not just electing a President.

Reagan did not do one 10th of what he talked about doing.

[Armstead]

42. Can you seriously deny....

that the US was a very different country in 1988 than it was in 1979?

Are you really so blind to the rhetorical and practical impact that Reagan and his crew had in changing the basic course and structure and role of government, and society? And how they shaped public opinion and values during that time?

And can you really deny George W's ability to f*ck up the US (and the world) in the last seven years?

Heck, if what you say is true, why don;t we just elect David Letterman, and have an Entertainer-In-Chief for the next eight years?

[MonkeyFunk]

43. My point is a simple one:

you overestimate the power of a President.

[Armstead]

45. Okay..I guess my point is equally simple...

I believe you underestimate the power of a president.

IMO that's an important distinction, because a president -- for better or worse -- both helps to set the larger zeitgeist and values and goals of a country and reflects them.

That, in turn, is important, because it either adds to public cynicism and apathy OR gives people hope that there are solutions and that government is on their side.
Had FDR accepted a limited role, for example, we would not have Social Security.

I wish that GWBush were merely a figurehead with limited power. But today we have a country that has become dysfunctional in a way that reflects GW's own faults, as well as the negative goals of the crew behind him.

But i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

[cuke]

66. No, your thinking and knowledge of history is simple

"Had FDR accepted a limited role, for example, we would not have Social Security. "

SS was FDR's way of staving off a more comprehensive change to a socialist govt. FDR envisioned the program as a temporary one.

"I wish that GWBush were merely a figurehead with limited power"

* is a criminal, and like all criminals, feels uninhibited by the law. This shows how wrong you are. In order to do all that he has done, * had to break the law. Are you suggesting that dem presidents break the law and run roughshod over the Constitution?

[Armstead]

75. I know who FDR was, and why

Sure, he was a capitalist, and he was trying to save capitalism from its' own excesses. Nuthin wrong with that, if it results in a program that has proven to be a success.

He could have sat back and said "Let history do what it will do" and allowed capitalism to continue to run amok (which is what happened under Bill Clinton) without any corrective measures. But he used his power to press for a solution.

[cuke]

76. *sigh*

I know he was a capitalist. I have no idea why you mentioned it when it has nothing to do with what I said which was about how FDR did NOT start SS because he "did not accept a limited role". It happened because he did accept a limited role.

You also didn't address my point about why * is able to exert so much power (ie because he is willing to break the law)

[CTyankee]

47. Bear in mind that the Dem Party had lost a significant base, Southern whites, after LBJ signed

the Civil Rights legis. in the late 60s. Of course, we liberals were glad to see the Southern bigots leave, but the Repubs with their Southern strategy picked them up. Then Reagan sought to diminish our other stronghold: unions. Reagan won his election and reelection with big margins.

If we win the WH by a big margin, our Dem president will be in a position to move more actively, knowing he/she has a mandate. THAT will make the difference, I think, in what we can expect a prez to do. LBJ, for instance, was able to push through Medicare and Medicaid right after his landslide in 1964. It might have been a different story if he had only squeaked through.

So your statement cannot be viewed without the context of the election and that will depend on Dems picking up a sizable number of voters to counter what the Repubs have now. It may not be just a discernable group, more likely a loose federation of voters in many categories. Just my 2 cents here...

[Armstead]

48. IMO it's important to set a clear economic agenda to get a mandate

I agree with much of your premise.

However, I believe the Democrats are in a position to pick up a mandate (or at least substanbtial majority) if -- and only if -- we run on a clear agenda of economic and social justice. That means those values and goals that I listed in the original post at the top. And, importantly, run in a progressive populist manner that makes very clear distinctions between Democrats and and the corporate, elite of the GOP.

The advisor to John Edwards, whose first name is Mudcat, states it much better than I. His point is that people like the angry white males can be won over if the democrats emphasize economic liberalism that clearly addresses the needs of the working class -- fair wages,retention of good jobs, preserving (or restoring) the middle class, accessible and affordable health care, etc.

It's true that the narrow-minded bigots may stick with the GOP if they are myopic on issues like guns, God and gays....But many blue collar people are far less concerned with those issues than with the bread-and-butter ones. And many of them are also "live and let live" which is a basic tenant of social liberalism.

So, in essence, my point is that rather than being timid corporate GOP-lite, if Democrats clearly become the party that champions the economic rights of the majority they have a good chance of winning a mandate necessary to begin to undo the damage done over the last 35 years.

[CTyankee]

49. "economic and social justice" are great themes for liberals, but the Repugs

again and again get voters with modest incomes to vote AGAINST their own best interests! Read "What's The Matter With Kansas?" and you'll see a good analysis of this seeming paradox.

Repugs have refined the art of divide and conquer. I've seen it played out in countless scenarios in my life. If we liberals are not fired up against undocumented workers, it's because we "favor" their rights over our own white, blue collar worker whose family came over for a better life and became citizens. "Economic justice" to them means "If you get economic justice, mine is diminished." If gays get "social justice" it is discriminatory to my social justice, i.e.heterosexual's "rights." And so on.

So it's just not that easy and at this point I think republicans really WANT us to use those terms, because they know exactly how to exploit them in the worst possible light. And they have been successful.

This is why Bill Clinton's appeal to the middle class worked and he won, among other factors. I don't mean to be derisive of anything you say, just let's be mindful of what our opponents will do to twist these ideals...

[Armstead]

58. Give as good as we get

You are correct, and What's the matter with Kansas makes good points about that.

But the answer is to give as good as we get, instead of worrying about what the GOP says.

IMO, we should not try to chase the idiot vote...And by idiot, I mean the people who are so closed minded and ignorant of their own economic interests that they can't see the forest for the trees.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake Democrats and otehrs on the left have made is that we have not defended the real principles of bread-and-butter liberalism in the last 30 years. As a result of this, a vacuum was created that the GOP filled with side issues like Guns and God.

The best way to counteract that is to hammer home the real point of liberal/progressive policies, so that the GOP is not allowed to twist, distort and distract from them.

There are many otehr segments of the blue-collar working class who could recognize their own best intreests IF they are given a choice. But if both parties seem equally disengaged from the issues that matter, then those people will not be given any reason to vote Democratic.

[CTyankee]

61. Yes, and Bill Clinton did that. I don't think Kerry did.

What we do know is that Medicare and Social Security are very popular. People of modest means have come to rely on them. We have to cast any program we want to create as being like them. That resonates with working people all up and down the income spectrum, with the exception of the very rich.

My issue with what you say about the "idiot" vote is that many people who aren't other wise idiots kind of become ones when they get suckered into REpub rhetoric. That's what I meant about the economic justice issue. Repubs turn it into an us vs. them issue and then some very decent people start thinking that "they" just might be a threat to themselves. I saw this with a coworker whose son got into a top college but couldn't get a scholarship because he was not a minority. My coworker saw affirmative action as working against her own son's best interests so that fueled her own animosity towards blacks. It was really a personal issue. She couldn't see the "justice" side of it at all, because her son was deserving and she was just barely making it so why did a black kid get ahead of her kid. And she wasn't a raving racist lunatic. She was getting screwed like everyone else who wasn't rich. But she didn't blame the rich!

Too bad, really, we should have stood in solidarity together...

[Armstead]

74. That's why it is important to hammer home a real agenda

My brother had a similar reaction to a similar situation. However, while he and his wife were not turned to the dark side because of it, they did get angry about affirmative action.

But that reinforces my previous point. When our side goes slack on the real core issues that have broad benefits, the side issues become much more important. If people were to identify with a strong basic Democratic/Liberal agenda that benefits them, they are more likely to overlook or at least accept the aspects that they don't agree with.

[cuke]

67. Funny, but the only dem candidate going after repukes is Hillary

I didn't hear any of the others going after *

[venable]

53. Exactly, Armstead, the reactions are from those who don't understand why she is disliked

even in her own party.

the list is very reasonable, and should be what any real, visionary candidate EXPECTS to accomplish.

the moaning responses here are more evidence (as if any more was needed) that the HRC camp just doesn't even understand the concept of vision. it's about getting elected. period.

please deliver our great party from this narrow, pinched, cowering view.

[Perry Logan]

38. Actually, no one gives a flying fuck.

[Armstead]

40. Intelligent answer

[wyldwolf]

44. crude, but true.

[venable]

54. Actually, many do care nt

[LanternWaste]

50. Which Democratic candidate *could* get all of those things done?

Which Democratic candidate *could* get all of those things done? :shrug:

[venable]

55. Edwards, for one, and Obama if he sharpens up a bit, and all of them likely

would make a very decent go at this list.

(except for HRC, who would not try, as evidenced by her supporters on this thread, who can't even imagine real change)

[LanternWaste]

56. Really? O-k.

Really? O-k.

:shrug:

[venable]

64. yes, really, that's the point of the Democratic Party.

and very many Democrats would agree, and expect no less.

[Armstead]

60. To repeat

Read post number 8 and 32 for my response

[LanternWaste]

63. I don't think that a mix of both idealism and the practical...

I don't think that a mix of both idealism and the practical is lowering the bar set for any candidate.

Maybe you think the two are mutually exclusive, I however do not.

[Armstead]

71. They are not mutually exclusive

It's a matter of degree of the mix.

[bvar22]

51. I will happily join you.

I will put on sack cloth and sandwich boards proclaiming my error.

I will be willing to do so if NONE of the above are achieved, but Hillary merely makes a genuine effort at moving toward those goals.

If she does, these guys won't be happy:









The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Armstead]

59. Eggs ackley

I don't expect a complete transformation either. But if she and the Democratic Establishment try to lead in such a shift -- and mean it by fighting for it -- that would be a victory in itself.

[cuke]

68. You do not sound credible

If you didn't change your position at least twice in one thread, I'd be more likely to believe you

[bvar22]

69. LOL!!!

That is really laughable.....coming from a Hillary supporter.
:rofl:

[Basileus Basileon]

62. No you won't.

Her Presidency, like her Senate career, will be 95% good and 5% bad, and just like with her Senate career, you'll only remember the 5%.

[Armstead]

72. Her Senate career has been mediocre

I suspect her presidency would be too.

A mediocre Senator is one thing. But a mediocre president is something we can;t afford at this point.

[CreekDog]

70. you forgot "if pigs fly" n/t

[ileus]

77. You may get the iraq all others are a pipe dream, no mater who's there.