My ultimate issue with Hillary Clinton:

[Mythsaje]

In a nutshell, I don't think she has the vision to be the leader we need in this coming time of tribulation. We face some staggering challenges, not only as a nation, but as a species, and nothing she has said or done in the past several years tells me that she's the kind of person who can rise to the occasion and be the person we need to lead not only us, but the rest of the world, into a harrowing and uncertain future.

We need a visionary--someone who can see and seek ways to implement desperately needed changes in the way we look at things and the way we do things...someone who isn't beholden to the status quo, who doesn't necessarily believe that the way things are done now is the way forward.

I'm not sure if any of the other candidates are that person, though I have seen glimmers of it in both Obama and Edwards. But I'm almost certain that Hillary Clinton is not that visionary.

John F. Kennedy was a visionary. He foresaw a day when we would walk on the moon and, though he did not live to see it, that came about just as he said it would. That is the kind of vision we need now...though we need a different direction than that.

We need a direction that takes us towards energy independence, learning to adapt our lives to the pressures of global climate change, and away from the wars spawned by the mistakes of our past. We need not a "Third Way" but a "New Way."

We need to reach out and embrace what hope we can through burgeoning technologies. New discoveries and developments in energy production and storage, medicine and genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. These are the pillars of hope in this new millenia's threshold on which we crouch.

We need a leader who can see what might be and can help forge a path to what can be. Someone not rooted entirely in the past, but capable of gazing into the future.


There is hope for us, despite the dread certainty of some people as to our fate. But only if the United States reclaims its role as the home of those who challenge the future, as we once did. We can, but we have to find the will to do it, and choose the right person to be our standard bearer into this new century and new millenia.

All politics aside...I don't think that person is Hillary Rodham Clinton. And that's too bad, because there is nothing saying the person we need couldn't be a woman.

Just not that woman.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. She's not my first choice. But she is a very smart person. And her husband, also a smart person,

surrounded himself in his administration with other very smart people. Very capable people. And unlike the current occupant of the White House, Bill Clinton was willing to listen to the people he surrounded himself with, even when they told him things he didn't want to hear. We can argue up and down about the Clinton administration, but it seems pretty clear to me that the country was run far more competently during those 8 years than at pretty much any other time I can think of in MY lifetime, which has seen mostly Republican Presidents.

There's only one person I can think of who has the vision and the forward thinking of which I think you speak. Unfortunately, I don't think he's going to run. So I will vote my conscience in the primary, and then if Hillary is the nominee I will support her.

In between then and now I'm going to pay attention to what she does and says, just as I will pay attention to the other candidates. I'm keeping an open mind. When she does something I disagree with I'm going to call her on it, but when she does something right- like her vote against the moveon censure the other day- I'm going to give her credit, too.

[Mythsaje]

4. They are smart...

But they are not bold. Nor visionaries. We've already seen that and I have no reason to believe that anything has changed.

I'll vote for her too, if it comes down to it.

[amandabeech]

34. I've dealt with Rhodeses and lawyers from top schools.

Rhodeses are folks who are smart, ambitious, and have never challenged authority. Same thing for the boys' state folks--remember the photo of Clinton and Kennedy.

There aren't many stand-up types among them, and they are very self-centered.

Remember, lots of smart people like the Clintons led us into Vietnam.

[Mythsaje]

36. There's a big difference between being "smart"

and being a visionary. We need someone who's willing to take us in new directions, and look at things in a new way. Someone who is willing, at least on occasion, to set the box aside and spend some time completely outside of it. Not only "what can we do differently?" but also, "what haven't we even thought of yet?"

[bbgrunt]

66. well, just as long as they share MY vision.

[amandabeech]

90. I couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[pnwmom]

2. The next President WILL face an enormous challenge.

But all of our candidates at least realize that fact. Unlike the Repubs, all of whom seem determined to continue even farther down the Bush path.

[saracat]

3. That is a very succinct and astute analysis of some of my concerns as well Great post.!

[sandnsea]

5. tax credits to solve health care?

No, she is not visionary. That is an understatement.

[Mythsaje]

7. In all fairness, none of the top tier candidates are approaching that with

anything approaching true boldness and vision.

Kucinich may have the right idea on that one, but I don't think he's the leader we need either. In fact, I'm not sure he's a leader at all.

[sandnsea]

9. Most are doing better than tax credits n/t

[Mythsaje]

10. This is true...

I don't like her healthcare "plan" at all.

[MiaCulpa]

25. What about it don't you like?

And can you respond with anything less oblique than it's not 'visionary' enough for you?

[Mythsaje]

29. Because the insurance companies have too much power

and I'm almost certain it won't work out the way people seem to think it will. As long as they're in the loop, they're going to influence the way things work--and it won't be to OUR benefit.

[MiaCulpa]

73. The insurance companies

are only 'in the loop' (under this plan) to the extent that private individuals wish them to be, if they so choose. No one has to continue to use private healthcare insurance, which quite effectively force a retooling that puts the consumer in charge.

[Cha]

37. Your post struck me..why

don't you think Dennis Kucinich is a "leader"?

[Mythsaje]

52. Because he hasn't even been able to break through

the wall of corporate media to find a way to reach the people. His ideas may be sound, but he seems to have neither the will nor the ability to get them out into the public dialogue. If he isn't able to do that, and it doesn't seem that he is, he isn't the leader we need.

[Cha]

57. Aha! Basic

Cosmic Sleuthing!

This is a little OT(but not much), but have you seen "The Last Mimzy"..I just saw it and I think you're into writing Science Fiction with a resurgence of humanity theme, perhaps like this flick?

[Mythsaje]

60. I have...

It was a good movie.

[Cha]

67. Ohhh, it was an Amazing Movie!

I laughed and laughed and at the end I blubbered from poignant tears.

[Mythsaje]

101. Okay, yeah...I was sniffling at the end.

My wife always looks at me funny when I do that.


Bridge to Tarabithia did that to me too. Grrr.

[Cha]

106. Thanks, I just moved

that up on my netflix queue..

And Roger Waters singing the song at the end of The Last Mimzy was perfect!

[MiaCulpa]

16. In all fairness,

Her health plan is very reasonable, and far beyond just 'tax credits.' She is forcing commercial insurance to compete with govt. insurance, medicaid/medicare. She is offering everyone the choice to keep what they have, or select from the same coverage that our politicians have, and if you can't afford either there is the medicaid/medicare option. The tax credits are incentive for everyone to participate in a healthcare plan, because despite availiblity, not everyone who is able does so.

I prefer it to Edwards plan, because his plan calls for mandatory testing that would be determined by the federal govt., and I cannot tell you how often I am at odds with MD's over when this test or another is or is not needed.(Not because of money, or insurance coverage, but because of the invasiveness and actual benefit or necessity of the test)

I'm not familiary with Obama's plan, so I can't make any comparison or comments there. Kucinich's plan is excellent, however there are some issues with universal healthcare that I think Hillary's plan would do away with by not shutting down the private insurance sector and forcing that competition.

JMO.

[gateley]

6. Biden was a visionary regarding his exit plan for Iraq. He's been promoting

it for at least a year, and now whoosh! Everybody is espousing the same philosophy -- that we need a political solution. A military solution isn't feasible.

And while most other candidates are focusing on higher gas mileage cars, bio-fuels, etc., Biden is the only one who has promoted research into lithium-ion batteries for cars (as being utilized by Tesla Motors now).

He's also the only one I've heard addressing the rising ocean levels.

Although he's an old salt, he knows how fast the world can change and grow, and I have faith he plans to be involved as it continues to do so.

[Mythsaje]

8. Good points...

Thanks for your input on this.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I wouldn't call someone who sponsors idiotic, draconian legislation like the RAVE act "visionary"

In fact, I think it's indicative of a really reactionary, backwards-ass frame of reference. Do you know who Bill Graham was? He's dead now. He put on a lot of shows. Some of them, I was at. Some of them, some people in the audience did illegal drugs, even. Like smoked a joint.

Under Biden's asinine law, Bill Graham was a felon, multiple times over, for putting on rock and roll concerts where someone in the audience may have been smoking a joint. Bill Graham could have been sent away to prison. For life. I know, a lot of my fellow Deadheads weren't always so fond of "Uncle Bobo", as Bill Graham was known. But I doubt too many of them think our tax dollars should have been pissed away keeping him in prison for putting on very enjoyable rock and roll concerts.

Here's what I think Uncle Bobo would say to Senator Biden, if he had the chance:



Biden is many things- an egotistical blowhard who loves to hear himself talk, for one- but "visionary" he aint. Oh, like all of 'em, if he's the nominee I'll support him. Fortunately, I don't need to worry, because he's NOT going to be the nominee.

[Mythsaje]

12. HE was involved in that shit?

I despise drug warriors.

That legislation was a pile of steaming shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. He was BEHIND it. Feh.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

[Mythsaje]

14. I wasn't aware of that...

I, too, am glad he has about as much chance as a sewer rat.

Thanks for the info, though.

FUCK Biden.

[gateley]

81. By all means, discount a candidate's contributions and focus on a fuck-up.

I don't like RAVE either -- I don't like the "war on drugs". I think RAVE was a knee-jerk reactionary move fueled by fear. Whatever. I think what the man has to offer is valid and promising.

I'm a staunch Biden supporter, but even regarding the other candidates, when I see someone turn on them because of a perceived 'wrong' I think -- what a republican way to behave. We're all working in this together, and we all have our own values and views.

PS -- Just FYI another poster said that RAVE has been found to be unconstitutional -- I'm hoping that's correct -- I'm gonna go check it out.

[Mythsaje]

97. That's a MAJOR fuck-up in my book...

It doesn't get much bigger than that. I consider the War on Drugs to be one of the major reasons we've allowed all of BushCo's Constitution-rending bullshit to go as far as it has--because we'd already been softened up by the WOD.

[gateley]

107. Don't get me started on the War on Drugs -- I'll end up sounding like a Libertarian.

That's how opposed I am to it. And I understand your well-made point. Still, I think it was an action of fear and a belief in that what they were doing was the right thing. I'm giving leeway due to what I believe were their motives. And you don't need to convince me of anything -- I'm in agreement with you on the legislation itself, but I think we'll continue to differ on whether it was enough to discount Biden as a viable candidate. Which is why I'm rooting for him, and you're not! Carry on!
:toast:

[Froward69]

68. that would bring 15 -50% of republicans

to actually vote for him to get elected!

besides that law has already been struck down as unconstitutional.

[gateley]

80. Has it? It's been struck down as unconstitutional? Really? I'm actually happy to

hear that. If you read my additional posts, you'll see I don't like RAVE either. Although I'm a strong Biden supporter, it doesn't mean I agree with everything he does. This is really good news to me.

[gateley]

77. Yeah, I don't like RAVE, either. I don't like it A LOT.

I DO feel he believed he was doing the right thing and I admire that in any candidate -- rare though it may be. I can almost understand the fear driving it -- people afraid of what drugs were doing to their kids. Same as in the 60's, kids were painted as helpless victims who the big bad pusher swooped down on and got them hooked. I'm not sure how many suits or prosecutions arose as a result of RAVE, but I agree that it's not the responsibility of club owners or promoters to ensure that everyone steers clear of drugs on their watch. And your citing of Graham as an example is kind of weak -- that never happened to him. As I said, it seems like a fear-based, knee-jerk reaction.

On this particular issue, I'm hoping the American PEOPLE come around and change the attitudes and mores regarding this type of thinking. I think it's begun... And he can always change his mind, you know!

OT, but I have to say your pic of Graham brings back LOTS of memories. I was at Eagles Auditorium in Seattle -- Seattle's version of the Fillmore, every Friday and Saturday night. Same act on Fridays and Saturdays, $3 in advance, $4 at the door. I've seen all the bands on the board behind Uncle Bobo except of course our light show(!) company was different.

I first saw The Dead at Golden Gardens Park in Seattle when I was 13.

Man, were those the days or what?? And there was lots of dope everywhere, and it didn't hurt a soul.

[Mythsaje]

98. To a large degree, the PEOPLE already have come around...

The politicians--not so much.

[jillan]

87. Biden was not the only candidate to sponsor this bill ----

This bill was introduced to the Senate again on January 7th 2003 by Senator Thomas Daschle with co-sponsors; Senator Joseph Biden Jr. , Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Senator Jon Corzine , Senator Mark Dayton Senator Richard Durbin , Senator Edward Kennedy , Senator Patrick Leahy , Senator Patty Murray , Senator Jack Reed , Senator Charles Schumer . This bill also failed to pass. <[1>]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAVE_Act

It should be noted that Durbin and Leahy withdrew their names as co-sponsors.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. C'mon. We all know this thing was Biden's baby.

I'm glad you're now acknowledging, at least obliquely, what a turd it was.

It's also interesting to note that Durbin & Leahy- two gents I respect greatly- withdrew their names from the thing. Maybe someone pointed out to Leahy, who is also a Deadhead, that he had been "participating in a criminal enterprise" every time he saw a band play where someone in the audience lit up a doobie.

However, I will add your information into my negatives column for Hillary, too. With her pandering on Flag Burning, video games and (the biggie) Iraq, she's got some heavy negatives. But Biden's down at the very bottom of my list.

However, like I said, if Biden wins the nomination, (highly unlikely) I will support him. Of course, I trust our Biden supporters and erstwhile DLC-aligned friends will do the same if Rep. Kucinich wins the nomination.

[jillan]

94. Of course I would support Dennis - I really like him.

I'm just saying that for whatever reason Biden adopted this Rave act -
he was not the only one that thought it was a good piece of legislation.

Even Kennedy signed on to it, and I consider him to be one of the more liberal members of the Senate.

When I saw Leahy's name on it, I almost fell over. This is a guy that has the Greatful Dead play at his
fundraisers . . . but then he woke up.

Edited add -
that I really like Dennis ALOT. More than most of the candidates.
And the weird thing is, is that Biden and Kucinich are so opposite, but yet I am impressed by both.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Biden's a smart dude, I'll grant you that. I think if it weren't for Iraq,

and if it weren't for some of the attendant realities and divisions we've seen in the past 6 years, he'd be a very strong candidate.

I have trouble with the RAVE act, obviously. I'm tired of "law n' order" pandering that ends up filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders while violent people get let out to make room for the guy who grew pot for cancer patients.

I'd like to see candidates stand up for sanity without fear of 30 second spots saying "Senator Flotzz voted to let the bad people out on the street. WHY does senator Flotzz love criminals more than your kids?"

Of course, that's also why we get idiocy like the moveon censure: "Senator Flotzz hates General Petraeus.. and our troops. WHY does Senator Flotzz hate the troops?"

Gotta say, that vote was a plus mark for Hillary. Biden (and Obama) sitting it out wasn't really a profile in Presidential Courage.

[Greyhound]

15. Was he visionary enough to oppose it in the first place?

Is he visionary enough consider new strategies, instead of simply rejecting them because they're new or different or because the ever-present naysayers proclaim them impractical? New and different ideas like going to the moon, which every "adult" in the "real world" said was impossible in less than a century?

[Cha]

39. Those are good qualites of Biden..

what was up with him on the bankruptcy bill? Was that visionary?

Has he gotten better since then? I'm not being a smartass..I know people can evolve. I'd like to know.

[gateley]

72. I had the same question and concerns as I'd heard the charge that

he was "owned by the credit card banks". It was explained to me that a large number of Delaware citizens are employed by those banks, and his vote was representative of what his constituency wanted. I'm assuming that if it had turned out differently, it could have had damaging repurcussions for the citizenry and State.

I'm stating this simplistically, but that's basic idea. If I put myself in his place, I'd probably feel the responsibility to represent the citizens, since that was my job and they'd elected me to do just that. He may not have liked the larger ramifications either, who knows? Tough decision. I don't like that he voted for it either, but if this is the correct interpretation, he probably did the right thing.

[Cha]

74. Thank you, I appreciate that!

We're still finding out how the whole credit card(bankruptcy) thing is going to affect some of our citizens and this country.

[gateley]

78. I know -- I do feel it's been detrimental to those who are in need -- especially

now with the mortgage nightmare and the plummeting dollar. On the other hand, if it hadn't passed and all these people filed and qualified for bankruptcy, would that spiral the country into further economic chaos? It's more than I can comprehend.

[Cha]

79. Yeah, I'm not a money person..

I'm just responsible for my own money.

[amandabeech]

41. Actually, lithium-ion batteries can combine with higher mileage

cars and bio-fuels rather nicely. The lithium ions make the hybrid and plug-in hybrid able to store more electrical energy so that they use less liquid fuel. As you know, lithium ions may be able to power a small vehicle a sufficient number of miles that most people could go without liquid fuels.

I'm not high on biofuels right now because it takes so much petroleum and natural gas to make ethanol from corn. On average you get 1.5 gallons of ethanol to 1 gallon of diesel and natural gas equivalent. Some folks argue that it is much less. Plus, there just isn't sufficient farmland to provide food for us and the folks who receive our exports as well as making any appreciable dent in our liquid fuel supply. I'm more interested in developments in cellulosic ethanol, but still, I don't think that it will yield the same amount of liquid energy that we use now, and I'm not sure what extracting all the plant matter will do to the environment.

But I agree. Biden is a responsible, experienced, intelligent candidate and I would vote for him over any of the Pubbies.

[gateley]

70. I'm with you on the reticence regarding bio fuels. And I think I've heard of

corn crop devastation as a result of harvesting for ethanol -- already!

The reason I AM high on the batteries is because Tesla Motors has been able to produce an all-electric car (with solar recharging option) which goes 200 miles on a charge and goes 0-60 mph in 4 seconds. Just proving that electric doesn't mean golf cart.

They are currently working on improving the batteries to bring the cost of the technology down, and efficiency up.

It makes sense to my tiny little brain that eventually we will have to move to non-fuel based energy -- why put it off? We don't have to stop there, but I think it eliminates a lot of time, effort and potential problems that focus on bio fuels or more hybrids will bring.

And Biden is the only candidate who has even mentioned options OTHER than bio-fuels.

Which is why I would vote for him over any of the other Pubbies, too! :toast:

[amandabeech]

92. I agree that hydrocarbons will play a smaller and smaller role

in all energy areas and that is a good thing.

Ethanol mania won't go away soon, though. There are senate seats and swing state electoral votes tied up with corn and soybeans, which means that the pandering will continue until it is obvious even to the farmers and agribusinesses that there are severe limits to the corn to ethanol equation.

[jillan]

82. Biden has the highest ranking of all the candidates running from the

League of Conservation voters. Meaning he has done more for environmental concerns than the rest.

Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Joe_Biden_Environment.htm

[amandabeech]

91. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. n/t

[DFW]

17. I'm less worried

I think Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, and maybe even Al Gore will all have
something to say about who a President Hillary (if that should end up
being the case), would appoint as Secretary(-ies) of Commerce, Interior,
Treasury, and EPA director. She will want to get re-elected, and she won't
be doing it with the help of the radical right, who has been calling her
"Hitlery" for years now (they have a creativity problem but what else is
new?).

I think a lot of JFK's visions were promoted by his brother, Bobby. I also
think a lot of Bill Clinton's vision was shaped from his Renaissance Weekend
acquaintances, and Al Gore, Bob Rubin and Bob Reich all had a LOT to say in
the forming of the direction of his presidency. Look at Bush for that matter.
He was a colorless wet washcloth. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who determined
it's ultimate shape and color. HIllary's not anywhere near that devoid of
intelligence or vision, but she will not be able to run the government on her
own. No president is anymore. It's the team the new president (whoever it is)
that will determine the tone of the next presidency.

Bush's team was a bunch of egotistical, ruthless, selfish bastards, and that's
the tone that was set for his tenure in office. He went along enthusdiatically
because he wasn't allowed to have a say in the matter anyway. Bill Clinton
assembled a decent team with Rubin, Reno, Gore, Reich, etc. If the next
president does half as well, then even a president Hillary will be a position
to do the country a lot of good. I'm not worried.

Yet, anyway.

[Mythsaje]

18. I'm not making any comparisons with what we have now...

I'm making comparisons with what I think we need.

We need someone bold and brilliant...not just smart, but something truly special.

Bill Clinton was a good politician, but he was also fortunate enough to be President through a time of unexpected technological achievement. He was in no way bold, or ground-breaking. He backed away from the challenges he should have faced instead, and we're all paying the price for that.

I don't want to see a repeat of those mistakes.

[DFW]

19. That's a valid point, I agree

Bill Clinton looked good due to 12 years or Reagan/Bush and the
fact that he lucked out to some degree.

Even so, his team helped.

My dream of Al Gore in the White House, does not, however, appear
to have much chance of becoming reality, and I'm trying to prepare
myself for a best-case scenario with the probable nominees that we
we will most likely have to choose from. They all have their positives
and negatives, but barring a meltdown somewhere, it will be one of the
top three now in contention, and if I have to ask myself if I consider
any of them a disaster, I have to say that I don't.

As a nation, I agree that we have a right to expect better than "not a
disaster" as our presidential nominee, but as a nation, we have created
this insane process for getting the job at 1600, and we now have to live
with the candidates that this process allows us to choose from. We had better
get used to the idea that the chances that reform in the system are unlikely
to come from Washington's initiative under a Democratic president, but certain
never to come under a Republican president. Get a Democrat in there first. The
old saying that the longest journey starts with a single step still demands
that that first step be taken.

[Mythsaje]

21. True...

And, yes, I think Gore could have been the leader we needed, but I seriously doubt he wants to take the job now.

And, yes, having a Democrat, any Democrat, in the White House would be an improvement. But I'm not sure we can afford baby steps. In fact, I'm almost certain we can't afford baby steps. The status quo is, at this point, dangerous. Corporate America has entirely too much power in our political process and I'm loathe to throw my support behind someone who does not seem willing to recognize that fact.

[DFW]

103. I think they all recongize that fact

Halliburton, the oil giants, Blackstone, Walmart, it's kinda hard to overlook.
The big question is if and how the next president will deal with this, and that
is unfortunately something we can't know. We don't even really know to what extent
anything CAN be done at this point. My guess is that corporate power is like the
proverbial iceberg. We only see the tip of it, imposing as that tip is in and of itself.

[Cha]

44. You mean it's time to stop

the Business as Usual schtick? Gawd, I hope so!

[Mythsaje]

53. Damn straight it is...

Business as usual is killing us.

[hfojvt]

20. I think my problems are a little deeper

Not only that she is lacking a certain something, but that she possesses attributes and promotes policies and uses rhetoric that I do not like. I expect her to be alot like Bill. First, there's a lot of non-progressive policies - NAFTA, welfare-reform, telecommunications act, etc. Second, there's alot of non-progressive rhetoric. If supposed progressives incorporate Republican talking points into their speeches, that seems to give more validity to those Republican talking points. Bill Clinton saying 'the era of big government is over' seems to give validity to the people who wanna make it small enough to drown it in the bathtub. Once you have conceded the truth of their argument, how are you gonna fight them?

Third, and this could just be a perception thing, is the seeming emptiness of her campaign. I look at her website. Instead of policy proposals or statements, her main feature seems to be endorsements. Then there are the empty catch phrases - "experience", "leadership", "change".
When I dig deeper into her positions on issues, they seem similar to Edwards and mostly progressive, but she does not lead with those proposals. They are not what her campaign is about.

[Mythsaje]

22. I think we need courage and imagination...

In great measure.

I am concerned about all the things you mention, but, at the base, it's about the ability to see where change is necessary, the will to begin that change, and the strength to maintain it despite whatever opposition one might face in the process.

[Rydz777]

23. I've made a point of not criticizing any of the Democratic candidates,

altho' I've praised some and have omitted praising others. Hillary is one I have not praised, mainly for the reasons given in your post. On present evidence, however, it looks like she will be the nominee, and I will support her against any Republican.

If nominated and elected I desperately hope that she will grow into the job - which means rising to the challenge of the tremendous problems we face. We are indeed entering a time of tribulations, most of them exacerbated by the two term Bush Presidency. The next (Democratic) President will need vision, courage, a strong Democratic majority in Congress, and a public willing to exercise patience and wisdom = a tall order.

[greymattermom]

24. wow

New discoveries in medicine. Love it. Right now the entire medical research establishment is struggling just to keep afloat, and if things don't improve soon, many will pack up their bags and leave, or just go to Pharma. I myself am in the begging mode, just to keep afloat until the dems finally do something about NIH. How'd you like to go into a field where at every stage 90% get eliminated. It's sort of like professional sports now.

[Mythsaje]

30. Right now a LOT of the new discoveries in medicine

are happening in China and N. Korea. Along with Great Britain, they're the ones at the top of the stem cell research field.

I'd like to see the U.S. become competitive in that arena again.

[Katherine Brengle]

26. I don't see much of the visionary in any of them to be honest.

I don't think visionaries go into politics much anymore.

And who can blame them?

[Ninga]

27. I agree. And add to your thoughts 'leadership". In other words, getting people to

follow.

We do not need a President to micro-manage, get down in the trenches and work on problems bottom up. We need a leader, who is willing to surround them self with people who are stronger and smarter, and manage the process from the top down.

It is not Hillary.

She is not a top down persona, nor a person most people will clamor to follow.

[cascadiance]

28. I'm still waiting for someone to lead on a "vision" of publicly financed campaigns!

NOT on K-Street CORRUPTION BRIBERY dollars! Unfortunately the system is so infested now, we'll have to wait for true leadership for that sort of thing to happen until after they are elected. I'm looking for STRONG HINTS that they will lead on this issue, as for me it IS the issue that we must solve first before we solve the climate change issue and many other issues that are so "BOUGHT OFF" from us right now by corporate money.

The only candidates I see stronger hints on that from are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich (and hopefully Al Gore if he gets in the race!)

[undeterred]

31. In a nutshell, she's not Al Gore.

Well, that's my problems with her.

[Individualist]

32. My ultimate issue is that she's a DLC member.

I will not support any member of an organization that wants to undermine the party.

[Mythsaje]

33. I don't think she's as bad as any Republican...

I just don't think she's the best we can do by a long shot.

[Individualist]

35. IMO, neocon enablers are worse than neocons

because they support corporatocracy the military industrial complex, and other neocon goals while trying to give the impression that they're Democrats.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[BlooInBloo]

38. There ya go. A republican would be better than Clinton.

[Individualist]

43. Spin, twist, distort

Not surprising, considering the source.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. My vote will go to someone who deserves it.

[BlooInBloo]

45. No spin. It follows from the meanings of "worse" (your word) and "better" (my word).

[Mythsaje]

48. I'm not happy about it. being HER..

but whoever wins will have the opportunity to appoint at least one SC Justice. Right now, considering the current makeup of the court, that's not small potatoes. No matter HOW people paint it, she's not going to surround herself with sycophants and incompetent cronies, nor do I believe she'll appoint a RW ideologue to the bench.

Whatever parts of the PNAC agenda she's signed on with is most likely a matter of expedience than ideology. She's NOT a RW wacko--she's just another pro-corporate panderer whose first loyalty is to herself and her own ambition.

From what I can see, I'm not a big fan of the DLC myself. I think it's stupid and arrogant to dismiss the importance of what might be at least half of the Democratic base for the sake of corporate sponsorship. In the end, I believe, that sort of maneuvering will do lasting harm to the party and push even more people either to third parties or cause them to give up voting completely...at least on the national level.

No matter how you slice it, Hillary as President will not do as much harm to the country as any of the Republican choices. And as small a consolation as that may be, it is at least something.

[Cha]

49. You're right..when you're

right you're right!

[lateo]

63. Exactly.

The DLC is the real problem.

[yardwork]

40. My problem with Clinton is that she is a right-center corporatist

But then, all our candidates are - with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. I'll vote for Kucinich in the primary. I'll vote for the Democrat in the general election.

The Republican Party right now is an evil, highly corrupt organization. Most of the Democrats are disappointingly corporatist and much too wimpy on social and political issues. It's not a good situation.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Totally! i HATE right-center corporatists with 92% progressive voting records. Assholes.

[yardwork]

47. Your progressive isn't the same as mine.

Anyway, I didn't say that I hate Clinton or any Democrat. Don't overreact.

[BlooInBloo]

51. It's not *my* progressive. And I didn't say you said you hated Clinton.

[Zomby Woof]

42. "Vision" is a marketing tool

It's safe to say that JFK had a great marketing team. His "vision" to get to the moon was fully motivated by Cold War concerns. Not scientific advancement for its own sake, not adventure, not some bold plan to define "the future". Documents came to light a few years ago proving that Kennedy's sole motivator to get us to the moon first was to beat the Soviets.

So, when you ask yourself what kind of leader you want, what you should really look at is whether you value style or substance. Too often, "vision" is style, and is the nice bunting and ribbons that politicians package themselves in to take advantage of the idealists among you who will surely vote for them.

[Mythsaje]

54. Regardless of the motivation in that matter

it still prodded us forward in a direction we badly needed to go. And still do. No matter what, the last thing we need, and the last thing we can afford, is someone who wants to stick with business as usual.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Everybody's looking for a savior these days. It's one of the great American failings.

[Mythsaje]

55. We don't need a savior

we need a leader.

Your approval of Hillary is well documented and it's telling you'd make this into something else to change the subject or, at least, shift in another direction entirely.

A leader (and, yes, I know, it's hard for a lot of people to imagine a real leader, since we've had so few of them in recent years) will challenge us to find ways to "save" ourselves. I'm not talking about someone who'll wave a magic wand and make everything better, but someone who can take charge and motivate us to do the things that we need to do to survive the coming crisis. Someone who can see beyond the next goddamn election into an uncertain and possibly frightening future.

[BlooInBloo]

56. If by "approval" you mean "third or fourth choice", then sure, savior-seeker....

"We need a visionary..." - yah - that's looking for a savior.

[Mythsaje]

58. Neither "leader" nor "visionary"

translates to "savior."

I don't care what version of the Idiot's Guide to the English Language you're using.

Right now the world and even the U.S. is fractured beyond recognition. There's no concerted effort to accomplish anything vital to our survival over the next couple centuries. It's all scattershot, with people running hither and yon trying to bandage gushing wounds with duct tape. I'm as anti-authoritarian as anyone out there, but I DO recognize that someone in a leadership role with the vision to look beyond the next election is going to be necessary to bring all those efforts into a coherent whole so we can actually make progress rather than frittering away money and energy accomplishing far too little far too late.

Insulting me doesn't change the dynamics of the situation. It does, however, make you look as though you don't want to address the real issue.

[BlooInBloo]

59. Yah it does, despite the pedantic observation that they're not dictionary-equivalent.

EDIT: There is no real issue. You can't stand Clinton, and cast about for some reason to rationalize it that doesn't run afoul of things like her overwhelmingly progressive voting record. You came with a dressed-up version "I don't want to have a beer with her". Congratulations.

[Mythsaje]

61. No, I DON'T like Clinton...

And if that's how you read it, I can't change your mind. Of course, if you think that wanting someone able to look outside the box, challenge the status quo, and bold enough to stand up to the vitriol and vehemence of the terminally stupid to build a workable plan for the next few decades in order to change the social, environmental, and technological dynamics is the same thing as "wanting to have a beer with," you're remarkably simple minded in this regard.

And obnoxious besides.

[BlooInBloo]

71. (shrug) And those are my *good* qualities.

[bvar22]

62. Not visionary???

Why just this morning on the George Steph Show she said she will "withdraw our troops from Iraq", AND AT THE SAME TIME leave our troops in Iraq to "fight Al Qaeda and protect American interests" indefinitely!
Now THATS vision, because I sure can't see how we can do both!

She also demonstrated vision during her Senate term when she saw the dangers in Video Games and charged to the front to address this acute problem that supersedes Iraq, the Economy, the Environment, Foreign Relations, the War on the Middle Class, Human Rights, Predatory Corporatism, Media Conglomeration, and Election Integrity.
It takes a true visionary to see that Video Games are THE dire threat in these dangerous times, and delegate time and resources to address this threat.

Oh, and then there is the Flag Burning......





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.

[Mythsaje]

65. Yes...she was worried about Grand Theft Auto

while the rest of us were distracted by Grand Theft America.

Silly us.

[killbotfactory]

102. And don't forget the RAVE act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAVE_Act

She is visionary enough to greatly expand police powers, while threatening free speech and assembly, to combat a party drug that is less harmful than alcohol.

[MBS]

64. I agree n/t

[cooolandrew]

69. I think she will act on the environmnet. It's her own future as well as ours...

... The GOP painted themselves into a corner on the environment, so it's a clear path for Democrats to make the change.

[kenfrequed]

89. Which...

Provides a perfect opportunity for environmentally aggregious companies to go out to MarKet K and buy themselves some Blue Democrat Action figures. Nice Corporate friendly DLC rangers who will protect the bottom line while pretending to be captain planet.

Please, make sure we vote for real democrats this time, not wussy moderate sell outs.

[EFerrari]

75. She seems to over think things a lot.

Maybe that's just all those years of being a public figure but, it comes off as insincerity. Or, she just may be insincere.

That's what I told my mom, who is a supporter. Not that woman.

[ruggerson]

83. I'm working with your mom to soften you up

she's having me over for tea on Thursday.

[EFerrari]

84. LOL!

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

88. I know, right? That's America's problem right there - people thinking too much.

[EFerrari]

96. . . .

:spank:

[Rosemary2205]

76. My ONLY issue is that she's not trustworthy.

Triangulaters tend to say one thing and then do another.

[Cha]

85. Yeah, I don't trust her...

not quality that she reinforces.

[doc03]

86. My ONLY issue is that she can't win

It's her negatives that will elect another Republican President in 2008. Look at the recent polls
from Ohio, the Republicans haven't even warmed up their smear machine yet.

[mistertrickster]

99. Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN president we ever had. For being essentially status quo,

he was good.

But we can do a lot better than the same old, same old.

Both Edwards and Obama offer something more.

[Mythsaje]

100. Yup...n/t

[OneBlueSky]

104. the problem with Hillary is that she's an authoritarian corporatist . . .

of the dyed-in-the-wool kind . . . not much different than what we have now, and certainly not what we need . . .

the only way we will EVER solve the critical problems facing our nation and the planet is to take on the corporations -- tax them, strictly regulate them, get them out of government completely, revoke their status as "persons," even put some of them out of business . . . Hillary Clinton is NOT someone who will even acknowledge the problem of the unrestrained power of unregulated corporations, much less address it . . .

[ForeignSpectator]

105. She will bring the change...