Asserting Hillary Will Be No Better Than Bush = Nader Saying Gore & Bush Were the Same.

[David Zephyr]

Yes, we all know that Hillary Clinton will not be a Ralph Nader activist or a Gore progressive. And she certainly will not push for everything that Dennis Kucinich (the only real angel in the crowd) is advocating.

That said, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that Hillary will be no different than Rudy, Mitt, John, Mike or Fred.

Hillary will appoint good justices to the Supreme Court; will turn back the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy; she will actually understand what her cabinet is talking about; she will promote education, health care; will permit gays and lesbians to serve in the Armed Forces; she will shut down the illegal prison in Cuba; she will use diplomacy over military action; she will be a progressive president.

She will work within the "system" to bring reform and change. She won't raise a red flag over the White House. But she apparently knows something about running a national campaign that works, something her opponents haven't quite gotten the swing of yet.

Suggesting that Hillary won't bring a positive, progressive change to the U.S.A. after 8 years of George W. Bush is just crazy and petulant. It sounds just as nutty as when Nader told the world that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000.

[TwilightZone]

1. The "there's no difference" claim is little more than a self-serving, attention-seeking device.

A comparison of her record to that of the (R) candidates makes that very obvious, and you've already covered many significant differences. She wouldn't have nominated John Roberts. She wouldn't have throw billions at the wealthy, while slashing social programs.

There is simply no doubt that she would be better than any of the Republican candidates. Any of our candidates would be.

[ginchinchili]

2. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but Nader has less than ZERO credibility with me.

As far as I'm concerned Nader says some things worth hearing, but the messenger is too much like Bush in this way; his sickly inflated ego makes him willing to sacrifice anything in order to be seen as, well, special.

He knew he had no chance of winning in 2000. Had he gotten out just before the election, Al Gore would be president today. Fuck him.

[UGADUer]

10. If a single Democratic Senator had stood up, Gore would be President today

as well. There are many "ifs and buts" -- aren't there?

[frogcycle]

3. anyone who asserts that is a flaiming idiot

I don't care for her but to use such hyperbole is ludicrous - it destroys any semblance of credibility of the speaker/writer, and indirectly reflects on whomever they are touting

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Nader=Garbage eom

[mondo joe]

5. "Crazy and petulant". That covers it. K&R.

[GeminiProgressive]

8. I would never say there is no difference

I do however, believe that the majority fo both parties are controlled by corporate interests and many secret deals that most of us don't know about. I think with a Dem like Hillary in office we may get some good things such as extended FMLA, gay rights, repeal of some of the tax cuts ect...but nothing fundemntal will change. The bus will stay on the highway..it won't take an exit. Free trade will continue to be pushed, privatizations will continue, outsourcing will continue, war for natural resources will continue (perhps taking less abrasive tactics into consideration), the labor movement will continue to be weakened, and our civil liberties will continue to be weakened. I really and truly believe that there is a conserted effort on the part of big business, gov officials, and politicians on both sides to turn our country into a police state.

[mondo joe]

15. I don't wholly disagree with you.

I don't agree quite either, but I don't fully disagree.

I also don't think politicians are the key to radical change.

[David Zephyr]

41. Direct action vs electoral action.

Politicians are not the key to radical change. Well said. And it's true.

All "radical change", to use your good term, has always come through direct action by the people, not by the electoral system.

To be sure, in the end, many progressive ideals can be codified into statutes by politicians --- who love to take credit for their 'contribution' --- but had there not been the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the freedom riders, the strikers, the Wobblies, a Stonewall, green activists, no politician would have ever been forced to make concessions on any of those great social/economic/environmental fronts that those mentioned conjure.

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

[jpgray]

6. I don't believe anyone really thinks that. It's an attention-getting way to express frustration

I wish people would express it more honestly, -and- that people would respond to that frustration with understanding here.

[cali]

25. I see no reason why silly and damaging assertions

should be met with "understanding". And I disagree that people don't believe it. Quite a few have expressed themselves quite clearly.

[UGADUer]

7. Hillary Clinton is FAR to the right of Mr. Gore.

And Nader said the "no difference" line in response to repeated agitations about a vote for him being a vote for Bush. He obviously knows there is a difference. Ralph and Al are friends. However he was dead on in saying that the parties were corporate-owned and we don't have a real choice in this country like most countries that have labor-based parties.

[mondo joe]

11. The same Gore who you said was immoral and did things hurtful to black people?

Wow - she must be Genghis Khan.

[UGADUer]

12. All people are immoral in some sense and are viable to be criticized

And all politicians should be criticized especially because their actions have huge impact. That is my message so please stop harrasssing me it's against board rules.

[mondo joe]

13. Asking you to back up your claims is not harassment. When you said Al Gore

was immoral and did hurtful things to black people, what specifically were you thinking of?

[UGADUer]

16. I did say immoral I don't remember singling out black people

When you hurt working people you hurt everyone.

[mondo joe]

17. I'll refresh your memory:

" Quite honestly a lot of what Gore did in the 90's was very immoral

and hurtful to black people"

Reply #9 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2070661&mesg_id=2070793

What specifically are you accusing Al Gore of?

[KoKo]

19. UGADUer you keep posting stuff about Gore you can't back up...

I'm still waiting for your links about Gore 'hurting black people' on that other thread. You never gave a link or any verification for your claims. Now, you come here and post again...with no links.

[Clintonista2]

33. Oops! Hypocrite gets caught! nm.

[pnwmom]

30. Nader said that if he were forced to vote for either Bush or Gore,

he would vote for Bush.

And his decision to campaign hard in swing states like Florida proved that he meant what he said.

Some friend.

[DemGa]

9. I've no doubt it will be better

Just having shrub gone will be like a weight lifted off this country--a big weight of an illegitimate war criminal presidency. Hillary is tough and can work from the inside. It won't be a progressive revolution, but it will be better. And the corporate powers seem okay with it, so she shouldn't suffer relentless attacks while in office.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. Your first paragraph succinctly states

the situation as it currently stands.

You also make strong points viz. the SCOTUS (and, for that matter, the rest of the federal judiciary).

For me, it's a question of degree. I don't honestly know how much Senator Clinton can get done, being aware of how much sleaze, slime and filth the Repiglicans will make her wade through for every single accomplishment. The Hillary-hating Machine is more than fifteen years old now, and it's well-oiled and well-funded. Bill's Clinton's potential was largely checked by efforts by the Repigs' machine. I expect more of the same from this beast the right wing has been fattening for the last fifteen years.

Nonetheless, if she's the nominee, I've come to the conclusion that I will have no choice but to vote for her, if for no other reason than, given all of her shortcomings, she's still light years better than any choice the other side will present. I also refuse to wear the Judas Goat crown and vote for a third party.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[MadHound]

18. Ooo, will she sprinkle magic pixies dust and bring heaven down to earth too?

Puhleeze, give it a break. Will Hillary be better than Bush, sure, but that can be said of most anybody including my dead grandmother. The real question is will she be a good president. And frankly, given her hawkish stance and her corporate ties, in my opinion no, she won't. She has all but said that she will continue the war indefinetly, and she is rattling that saber hard at Iran. However her health care program is a joke, with a big fat give away to the insurance industry as the punchline. As far as gays and lesbians in the military, HAH, you must be on crack if you think she's going to touch that one. And this massive police state that Bush has set up, well gee, guess who helped aid and abet it:think:

Hillary is no progressive, she is simply another corporate whore selling out to the highest bidder, much like her husband was. She is the same sort of candidate that we've had shoved down our throat time and again, the lesser of two evils. Well guess what, that still makes her evil.

Myself and millions of others are looking for real change in this country, not more of the same ol' same ol'. Hillary is not that agent of change, nor will she ever be. She's just playing good cop to Bush's bad cop, and meanwhile, as we're all occupied with this mummer's show, the real power, those fine corporate players who pay the bills for both Bush and Hillary, are taking this country straight down the tubes. Yes indeed, welcome to the two party/same corporate master system of government.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

21. I agree with much that you say

But I must ask how you plan on electing that person I think you and I both want in the current toxic, putrid, corrupted system?

Even FDR required an America that had "bottomed-out" before the American people would get off their conservative repiglican asses and demand progressive change.

From where I sit, it looks like change has to come from the bottom up, from progressives willing to run for dogcatcher and county surveyor, city council, county commission and state agriculture secretary.

Build a progressive movement that way, and it can sustain itself. It's also easier. Smaller electorates, cheaper campaigns.

Pyramids built with the point facing downward tend to have a hard time remaining upright.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[CTyankee]

37. Good points there. It would be interesting to see if smaller progressive steps

can accomplish more, absent the example you give of FDR (to which I subscribe BTW). The other sweeping reforms came with the close of WW2 with Truman's GI Bill, and the Medicare/Medicaid legislation that came with LBJ's overwhelming victory in the 64 election (and sympathy because of JFK's assassination).

What I believe scares the Repugs more than anything is that the American people come to love the programs that help them once they are passed and won't give them up (SS and Medicare). That is why they are trying to demolish SCHIP for everyone except the lowest of the low in income. If Hillary can get that foot in the door on programs for the middle class, there will be no going back. Repugs have tried with SS only to be beaten back bloody.

So I am hopeful that the smaller progressive steps will help!

[Virginia Dare]

36. No, that would be Kucinich...n/t

[Eric J in MN]

20. Did she say she's going to close Gitmo? NT

NT

[JackRiddler]

22. What does better than Bush mean?

Clinton will be different in many ways, for sure. I doubt sincerely she will turn back the Bush tax cuts, but your other items are likely in some form or another ("promote" health care, but no universal plan for sure).

And then her admin will likely lead to Jeb Bush or a facsimile thereof in 2012.

Further I note in your list you do not say she will a) end the occupation of Iraq; b) end the bogus "War on Terror" or reverse the Homeland surveillance state; c) not let herself be railroaded into a new war soon as there is another terror incident or propaganda campaign hyping the next "threat." Interesting omissions. Or are these "Kucinich positions"?

And "knowing how to run a national campaign" (i.e., being able to raise more money than the rest and be anointed as inevitable by the corporate media) has nothing to do with using the Presidency for the good.

[Canuckistanian]

24. "better than Bush." Yes, the mind reels at the myriad possibilities

Even Bonzo the chimp had better table manners.

[pnwmom]

32. If you can't run a national campaign, you can't get elected.

And then you REALLY can't do any good.

[JackRiddler]

34. Begs the question

She's running it so well because the corporate money has chosen her. Questions of management are mostly secondary, when money & corporate media do the choosing. You're saying we have to be stuck with their choice.

[pnwmom]

38. Obama has just as much money. How come he's not running even with her?

[JackRiddler]

47. Where is he getting his money from?

Compared to HRC?

Has he been declared inevitable by the media?

(Why I am violating my promise to myself not to fall for the four-year campaign and wait until an actual primary is in view for any of this talk?)

[Canuckistanian]

23. Call the nice young men in their clean, white suits

They're coming to take him awayyyyy...

[philly_bob]

26. Did anyone actually say that? If so, that's crazy-talk. If not, it's a straw man!

Anybody got a link, of someone on DU who says that Clinton is no better than Bush...

Or is this the ultimate Straw Man,

Wikipedia: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. You haven't spent much time in GDP, have you? nt

[illinoisprogressive]

28. Hillary is joined at the hip with the DLC - Republican lite Corporation

[JackORoses]

29. Hillary would be slightly better than Bush, but there would still be War with Iran

and massive corporate giveaways...
Do you think Hillary will stand up for Net Neutrality?

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. Clinton has already stood up for net neutrality, and will continue to do so.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senator_Clinton_to_cosponsor_Internet_neutrality_0518.html

Please research before posting baseless claims.

[JackORoses]

48. that story is from May of 2006, and what do you know, she never brought up a bill

Nice showmanship Hill

[CoffeeCat]

31. Come on everybody, why don't we play...

..."let's compare apples and hockey pucks!"

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

35. This is one reason why I am keeping anti-Nader propaganda alive.

Nader lurks in every election, whether he runs or not, through Naderism.

[Elidor]

39. Hillary will be *slightly* better than Bush

And what an inspirational talking point that will make.

[David Zephyr]

43. Not meant to be an "inspirational talking point". Responding to the foolishness.

I didn't use the word "slightly" and the OP is directed to those that assert (the word in the title) that Hillary will be a warmonger, as big of a corporate whore as Bush is, will encourage child slave shops around the world, will "rule" eight years and then turn it over to Jeb Bush as an agreed upon arrangement by "the two families".

If you want to be inspired to vote for Hillary, just wait until there's a stark choice between her and any of the GOP men running. You'll be inspired by that enough without any push from me in any post here at the DU.

[Cha]

42. I've never said hillary would be no

better than bushit but I think we can do better than hillary.

[HughBeaumont]

44. Electing a koala to high office would bring positive change after 8 years of Bewsh.

Doesn't mean it's the right choice.

There are SO many better candidates, ones that have far better positions on the three most important issues - ending the war, economic fairness and health care. Why are we accepting the "inevitable"?

I mean, we're nominating the former First Lady? Banana Republic, anyone?

[tom_paine]

45. I agree and will vote for Hillary if she is nominated. Things will be different, though.

Just not in any way that really matters.

Warrantless wiretapping
PATRIOT Act
Gitmo
Sovietization/Bushevization of the Executive Branch (sure, she'll appoint her appointees, but if you think that is enough to DeBushify by now, you have another thing coming)
more...

So, yes, I will voter for her if nominated, as the only chocie we are resented with.

And I will expect the economy to heal a bit and the environemt, too...a little bit.

But a Hillary Imperium means with almost certainty that nothing of significance in the conversion of Old America to a Totalitarian Evil Nation will be done to reverse this conversion.

The overall status quo of Ameicans as Imperial Subjects will continue. Hillary will constantly be challenged by the Bushies to "prove her manhood", which she will do.

She will also, I prophesy, like Nancy Pelosi, find it easier to screw over those vagabonds and vagrants and filthy creatures who she rules, than to stand up to the Busheis, who could basically do anything to her, up to and including Wellstoning or Kennedying her, and get away with it.

That's my take on it.

But I will still "vote" (for whatever that's worth in this Third World Sewer) in 2008 for her, beuase even the situation I have laid out is far better for humanity than the unrelenting march of BushPutinism.

Can you tell I won't be happy about it?

[Orsino]

46. Hillary will be a positive change, I guess. But progressive?

I see very little basis for that characterization. She may remain Republican Lite, but that would be a change for the better. My biggest hope for her is that she will not veto actual progressive initiatives that manage to make it out of Congress. I see a little reason for optimism there.