fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

Plutocrat Or Populist? Actually, Hillary Clinton Is Neither

Editor's Blog Memo Pad Politics

Plutocrat Or Populist? Actually, Hillary Clinton Is Neither

Share

As America’s biggest political target – a status she is likely to enjoy for the foreseeable future – Hillary Rodham Clinton takes incoming fire of every caliber from all directions. One day her words are ripped from context to depict her as a plutocratic elitist; on another day, she is quoted, selectively, to prove that she is a raving populist. And on still another day last week, when she was campaigning in North Carolina for Senator Kay Hagan, a right-wing rag tarred her as a “plutocratic populist.”

Her partisan critics never worry about such ludicrous contradiction, so long as they can keep pumping out the cheap shots. Having endured the same tactics in the White House, the Senate, and the State Department, in campaigns and in daily life, she must find it all boringly familiar by now.

So far her popularity has remained remarkably durable – but the constant effort to sow confusion about her sympathies, positions, and policies, especially on economic issues, still deserves rebuttal.

Ever since she mentioned the fact that she and her husband were “flat broke,” meaning deep in debt, when they left the White House, Clinton’s most hypocritical adversaries on the right have tried to provoke envy. Accepting a large speaking fee from the likes of Goldman Sachs bolstered the meme that she is “out of touch” with the problems faced by middle-class families.

Now, as she speaks out on economic issues during the midterm campaign, she is portrayed as “copying” the “populist, anti-corporate rhetoric” of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), courageous scourge of crooked bankers and financial fraudsters.

But the truth about Hillary’s economic outlook is both simpler and more complex.

The simple part is that for her entire public career, Clinton has been a consistent advocate for working families and the middle class — notably on issues like the minimum wage, which she fought to raise as a senator. She sponsored legislation not only to raise the wage, repeatedly, but demanded a ban on congressional and executive pay increases until workers’ wages went up first.

“I’m talking about people who get up and go to work every day, [whose paychecks] haven’t been raised since 1997,” she told a conservative farmers’ group in 2007. “And congressional salaries have gone up more than $30,000 at the same time. I don’t think we should have any more congressional pay raises until, number one, the minimum wage is raised, but number two, until average wages start going up, because the last five years Americans have been treading water.”

During her Senate career and then as a Democratic presidential candidate, Clinton told everyone who would listen what she thought about questions of fairness, inequality, and growth that remain central today. She dismissed the idea that higher minimum wages damage growth and employment; she demanded restoration of the traditional balance between government and markets, which had tipped too much toward corporate power; she blasted the Bush administration’s cuts in assistance to the poor and unemployed; and she urged, above all, that the forces destroying the middle class must be restrained and ultimately reversed.

Whatever her connections with the wealthy and well connected, Clinton doesn’t seem terribly impressed. “With all due respect, rich people did not make America great,” she said in 2006. “Every society throughout history has had the rich and the poor. It was America’s destiny to create something new, a middle class that provided upward mobility for the poor and opportunity for the many. Our strength, our economy, our values derive from the promise of America, the promise of lifting yourself up through hard work in a society that rewarded results.” In her presidential campaign, she called for a “21st-century progressivism” in the trust-busting, labor-friendly style of Theodore Roosevelt.

The more complicated part, however, is that Clinton isn’t anti-business, hostile to markets, or suspicious of enterprise, as “populists” are supposed to be. She once sat on the Walmart board of directors. She often speaks admiringly of her father’s small drapery business, she pushed hard on behalf of American corporations abroad as Secretary of State, and at the Clinton Foundation she now promotes small- and medium-business development to empower women in America and around the world.

Clinton is a sharp, tough, determined politician who rose, like her husband, from an ordinary family. She understands the pressures wreaking havoc on the system of rewards and rules that built this country. Neither plutocrat nor populist, she firmly believes a strong middle class is the essence of a democratic society. But amid the ceaseless clamor of right-wing ideology, that may just be radical enough.

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers. Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003). Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

91 Comments

  1. Eleanore Whitaker October 30, 2014

    Let me guess. Now that the right wing in this country has criminalized moderates and liberals, populists are next on their “hit” list? Hillary Clinton is a woman who aged into politics through the school of hard knocks. Not everything in this country has to be filtered through men’s brains. Hillary is an icon of the most educated, talented women in the US. She’s recognized by female CEOs and the poorest of the poor across the globe.

    The problem with the narrow control freak minds today is that anything that doesn’t fit into their needle’s eye is considered wrong. Most Americans, contrary to popular right wing needle brains are populists. Why shouldn’t we be? It’s our tax dollars paid to the federal and state governments. All attempts to reduce the voices of taxpayers by the almighty gods of Moolah will eventually fail. Does revolution by the masses remind the righties of anything? Or do they erase the parts of world history that makes them uncomfortable?

    Reply
    1. Joe T October 30, 2014

      February 17, 2008, reprint – Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
      EDIFICATION:
      As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter has treated over 1,500 patients and examined over 2,700 civil and criminal cases. Turning his hand to political psychopathology, the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, has diagnosed an alarming percentage of the population as suffering from the grotesque form of mental derangement known by some as moonbattery

      The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda’s madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker October 30, 2014

        Your post shows all the mental illness proof I need to know that your extremism isn’t just mental illness but a danger to our society.

        You actually think you can post from an unnamed Psychiatrist and think I’ll fall for that load of BS?

        The left isn’t radical. It doesn’t force you or anyone to think as your right wing mentally ill radicals do.

        Here’s better proof little boy. Which ideologues own the media most? Rupert Murdoch, Adelson, Turner and Zuckerberg..all admitted ultra right wing conservatives who use the media as a mind control game, overloading it with the same BS bias as your post.

        Your life is troubled because as a rightie, you think you are “entitled” to be superior and to use that self-created superiority to shove your ideology down everyone else’s throats.

        Admit it. You are hot to make certain everyone marches to your flawed, defective ideological tune. Sorry…I won’t pander to your selfish, narcissistic, self-important gross insecurities. Get help.

        Reply
        1. Joe T October 30, 2014

          SLOW DOWN ..you’ll have a heart attack..the POST is verified who wrote the article ..furthermore…..he’s NOT the only educated person to voice clinical analysis on Liberalism. You have succinctly demonstrated that you are controlled by your emotions instead of logical thinking. Do your research…Liberalism has not worked for society anywhere in the world….ask ENGLAND!
          Ps: Vitriolic barbs are another indication of arrogance and lack of erudition…Veritas Eleanore
          Best regards, Joe T

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker October 30, 2014

            A post that CAN be verified, names names. Your post doesn’t Try again. If you really want to prove your slow witted unbias, try also showing us an article by a named psychiatrist about neocons. An educated person doesn’t try to flim flam another educated person by posting an article that doesn’t name names. In a court of law, that’s not accepted as fact. Try again.

            Liberalism works far better than your conservatism. Your conservatism has destroyed this country and all it took was 8 years of Bush and Cheney. You want me to ask England?

            I can do better than that…I can ask my younger son who lived in one of THE most liberal countries in the world for 15 years…Sweden. He returned to the US last year and went into culture shock at just how much bilking you cons are doing of the middle class.

            Here’s an example for you cons to chew your cow cuds on …Sweden’s tax rate is 52% of income. College is free, medical is free and for those in need, housing is subsidized. Cons like you love to claim how the US’s 28% tax rate on the Middle Class is soooooooooooooooo high…then, you start to tally up the cost of housing, groceries, fees on everything up the wazoo and the US actual taxation rates skyrockets far past that of Sweden..Calling something a “FEE” just so CONS can’t be accused of raising taxes still wipes out middle class incomes just as much as higher taxes. Try that one on for size.

            Reply
          2. Joe T October 30, 2014

            BOTH paragraphs contain the author’s name, to wit:THIS INFO IS IN ORIGINAL POST.
            [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]
            February 17, 2008, reprint – Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
            LOOK it up on the internet it’s from 2008….6 six ago….and is VALID!

            Ps Your passive-aggressive demeanor is being demonstrably displayed in an arbitrary and capricious manner! Perchance are you happy in life? Are you in a satisfying relationship or even married?
            Something amiss in your comments that is troubling!
            Have a wonderful day and tomorrow….ciao!

            Reply
          3. Eleanore Whitaker October 30, 2014

            1500 patients is all Rossiter treated. My doctor treats more patients than that in a week. What’s the matter with Rossiter? His patients so mentally ill he can’t possibly cure them?

            PS…Have you joined ISIS yet? By the way, Mr. Presumptoris Rex…I’m not a liberal. I’m a progressive populist.

            You need Dr. Rossiter’s help. Contact him immediately. I’m sure the two of you can commiserate on how terrible liberals, moderates, progressives, socialists and populists are.

            Change your Pampers. You’re overloaded. I’m a populist, love MY president, I outvoted you twice in the last 2 elections and you can’t lick President Obama’s shoes. Try again Joi Boi Twerp.

            Reply
          4. Joe T October 30, 2014

            I see ANGER management in your near future, tsk, tsk.

            Reply
          5. Eleanore Whitaker October 31, 2014

            Now …that’s what YOUR problem is…You can’t see. You’re the most blinded right wing mental case to come down the pike.

            I don’t need anger to tell you what you don’t what to see or hear. But, in case you missed it, I have NO intentions of ever letting the right wing mental cases destroy the peace, unity and harmony of my country. So..go join ISIS little boy. You sound like a hateful, twisted mental case.

            Reply
          6. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

            Your doctor? So, you admin that you’re presently under psychiatric care. Thanks, Eleanore. That explains a lot about your postings on this website.

            Reply
          7. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

            Joe is right: You are a man-hating jerk. You’re entertaining, though in a sick way.

            Reply
          8. Eleanore Whitaker October 31, 2014

            You haven’t had a woman since your mother left you. Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge bashing women? Or sticking your nose back in your general ledger? Or that’s right, you are the CPA who helps your rich bois keep those 2 phony sets of books no one but you and they know about right?

            Reply
          9. JPHALL October 30, 2014

            What other educated people? Where are they published? And so on. I would like to look them up.

            Reply
      2. tranz2deep October 30, 2014

        I just flagged your BS as offensive.
        ~~
        By the way, Joe the Plumber (who I suspect was the inspiration for your pseudonym) is neither a plumber nor named Joe. Just saying.

        Reply
      3. JPHALL October 30, 2014

        Joe T.: That is your source? One man’s opinion? Where are his studies listed? When and where did he do his research? Who confirmed his research? What issue of Psychological Abstract contain this information?

        Reply
      4. Independent1 October 31, 2014

        You fit perfectly into the description of this article – you’re even prejudiced against liberals!! How interesting!! I’ll guarantee your also prejudiced against other minority groups!!

        Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

        There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

        The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

        “Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

        http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

        Reply
      5. Independent1 October 31, 2014

        And your post like everything else you say is unadulterated BS!!!!!!

        Reply
    2. jointerjohn October 30, 2014

      They do indeed erase everything that makes them uncomfortable. Climate change, the fact that trickle down economics does not work, etc. They go apoplectic whenever anyone honestly presents American history without censoring it first to make all of it completely holy and pure.
      As we proceed to 2016 two things will be very interesting to watch. #1 whether the right can wean themselves from their favorite duck and dive of claiming everything is President Obama’s fault. They have a considerable portion of their base who can’t discuss anything without tying it back to the President. Will they be able to retrain, (or better yet reprogram), those reactionaries so they aren’t wasting time thrusting at a soon to be retired President?
      #2 How will they dig up dirt on Ms. Clinton when she is quite possibly the most thoroughly vetted human alive today? No shocking discoveries to roll out about her past. With today’s republican party that amounts to wearing holster number one with no gun in it.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker October 30, 2014

        Anyone who has ever had the responsibilities of parenting can spot little boy attitudes of the right wing a mile away.

        It’s easy to spot how childish these people are by their pettiness and irresponsibility. They absolutely do not believe in majority rule in elections and voting.

        They remind of little boys who got caught with their hands in the cookie jars and then try to blame their siblings when the jar goes empty.

        Throwing everyone but themselves under a bus is the most obvious clue of a misguided ideologue. Behind all of their childishness? The idea they can rule the rest of us whether we like that, pay for that or not. Spoiled little boys and girls always try to “get away with it.” Not exactly a sign of a mature mind.

        Reply
    3. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

      Hillary Clinton is not a populist. She’s a sleazy opportunist who has no credentials to present to the nation.

      Reply
      1. Independent1 October 31, 2014

        You’d do better keeping your nose into your accounting and leave politics to people who know something about it.

        Reply
        1. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

          You’d do better by signing off this website.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker October 31, 2014

            “If” CPA is a NY accountant and we all know Noo Yawkah accountants…Madoff had a ton of them.

            Reply
  2. Dominick Vila October 30, 2014

    I find the rhetorical question in this article a bit offensive, and evidence of the cynicism of those who don’t hesitate to criticize personal and/or professional success to ignore or justify their own failures. Hillary Clinton is neither a plutocrat nor a populist. She is a person who rose to where she is today through the school of hard knocks. She managed to overcome the socio-economic barriers that most middle class Americans, especially women and ethnic minorities, face since the day we are born.
    As a politician, Hillary Clinton is doing what politicians do. She is supporting candidates whose values and goals are similar to hers. She is doing everything she can to ensure Democrats retain control of the Senate, and she is getting a lot of free air time in anticipation of her expected decision to run for President.
    I have a lot more respect for people like her, and for people like Bill Gates, than I do for elitists and all the parasites who live in splendor, not because of what they did to get there, but because of inheritances or fraudulent activities.
    I sincerely hope Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, not only because of her qualifications and record, but because it is time for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized and civilized world and give women the opportunities and credit they deserve.

    Reply
    1. Joe T October 30, 2014

      Bill (Clinton) is this you posting for your wife again? Stop it! You know better…well maybe you don’t….being a voracious prevaricator as you are….Oh…Monica’s on cable news again….POST HER!

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila October 30, 2014

        Consider posting in forums for children…

        Reply
        1. Joe T October 30, 2014

          WHY…is that where you are?
          Let’s see if you can spell DNA…….send it back will ya! best regards, Joe T

          Reply
          1. Independent1 October 31, 2014

            No! Posting for children is about the right level for your mentality.

            Reply
    2. cleos_mom October 30, 2014

      I have considerably more respect for her than the people who are currently prattling about their intentions to either not vote or vote for Elizbern Warrsand. Yep, that’ll show ’em. If we get a Republican Congress and White House, they’ll be as much to blame as the Teaheads.

      Reply
    3. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

      Dominick, you are really a jerk to admit that you think we should elect a woman President just because it’s time to do that.

      As to your breathless endorsement of Hillary Clinton: What about experience, Dominick? She doesn’t have much, despite the efforts of her followers to burnish her pitiful public service accomplishments. She failed as a New York senator. She failed as Secretary of State. She’s been implicated in the death of her buddy Vince Foster. She was accused of insider trading in the pork belly commodity market and she was the principal mover in the Whitewater scandal.

      This is the shining paragon you think should be our president? I think
      that you’re living in liberal never never land.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila October 30, 2014

        No, neither Hillary nor Elizabeth Warren should become President because they are women, they should be considered as very serious contenders because of their education, relevant experience, personal achievements, their pragmatism, and demeanor.
        Hillary’s experience may be irrelevant, or not enough, for you, it is for me and I suspect for many more.

        Reply
        1. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

          But, thta’s not what you wrote. You wrote “…it is time for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized and civilized world and give women the opportunities and credit they deserve.” That means elect Hillary because she’s a woman.

          Reply
          1. Louis Allen October 30, 2014

            CPA: How offensive of you to confront Dominick with his own words. How offensive of you to point out that he said what he now claims he did not.
            Don’t you realize that liberals like Dom DO NOT deal with facts, and that he has a perfect right to claim that he really did not say that, or that he didn’t mean what he (previously, 10 hours before) said??!!
            Dom reminds me of the dad whose son asked him: “Dad, can I have FIVE dollars to buy ice cream?”
            The dad said: “FOUR dollars??!! What do you want THREE dollars for??!! You should be ashamed for asking me to give you TWO dollars!! But, on second thought, it’s ok, here is your DOLLAR !!

            Reply
          2. Dominick Vila October 31, 2014

            Do you have a problem with women having the same opportunities afforded to men who often lack the qualifications to become national leaders? Is equality a negative in your mind?

            Reply
          3. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

            Trying to lay guilt on us, Dominick? What’s your story? If a man doesn’t vote for Hillary, then he’s a male chauvinist.

            It’s people like you, with their dishonesty, that makes secret ballots mandatory in a democracy.

            Reply
          4. Dominick Vila October 31, 2014

            No CPA, I simply believe that when a woman has the same qualifications, experience, and character as her male counter parts they should have the same opportunities to get ahead and be elected to the highest office in the land, if that happens to be the position they hope to get.
            The reason for the USA not having elected a female president is not because our current laws prevent it, but because of the mindset that still exists among many of our fellow Americans, including women, and the fact that the few women who tried (Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin’s bids to become VPs) were either not qualified for the job or lacked the intellect to gain the respect of voters.
            Hillary Clinton ran and was defeated, not because of limitations, but because she ran against one of the most remarkable politicians and achievers in U.S. history. Her qualifications, her record, her vision, and character make her the person to beat in 2016…if the neanderthals don’t find ways to derail her candidacy with irrelevant issues.

            Reply
          5. Louis Allen October 31, 2014

            CPA: Don’t be too hard on Dom; he is not used to be challenged or contradicted (God forbid !) on this forum of liberal half wits.
            Remember, also, that “In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king.” So Dom is used to being “king” on this cesspool (as bikejedi calls it !) of BLIND people.
            In Dom’s (seldom challenged) world, not only “if a man doesn’t vote for Hillary, then he’s a male chauvinist”, but also: “If you do not agree with Obama, then you are racist.”
            Dom’s comment about “… not only because of her qualifications and record, but because it is time for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized and civilized world and give women the opportunities and credit they deserve.” is an inane and empty phrase full of the empty and MEANINGLESS symbolism that liberals love so much.
            If Joe The Clown Biden were running (pleeease God, NOO !!), Dom would be saying: ” … it is time for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized and
            civilized world and give dunces and clowns the opportunities and credit they
            deserve.”
            Why would anybody vote for Hillary unless she was the MOST qualified of ALL the candidates (something she obviously is not).
            Following Dom’s logic, “it is time” that we elect our first Mexican American, and 8 years after that “it is about time” we elect our very first gay person or lesbian. Yeah, it is time, it is time, it is time ….
            Oh brother.

            Reply
          6. Dominick Vila October 31, 2014

            Instead of using metaphors, why don’t you read the entire posting made by those you criticize? Here is it again, for your enjoyment:
            I sincerely hope Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, not only
            because of her qualifications and record, WHAT PART OF THIS STATEMENT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
            but because it is time for the
            USA to join the rest of the industrialized and civilized world and give
            women the opportunities and credit they deserve.
            Are you against American women having the same opportunities, and getting the same credit – or criticisms – as anyone else just because of their gender?

            Reply
          7. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

            You’re prone to setting up straw men to further your point of view. Who’s denying women the right to run for office? She tried for the nomination in 2008 and failed, at one point breaking down into tears.

            Dominick, you’re intellectually dishonest.

            Reply
          8. Louis Allen October 31, 2014

            Dom: Just in case you do not read it, let me copy you on my post to CPA:

            CPA: Don’t be too hard on Dom; he is not used to be challenged or
            contradicted (God forbid !) on this forum of liberal half wits.
            Remember,
            also, that “In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king.” So Dom
            is used to being “king” on this cesspool (as bikejedi calls it !) of
            BLIND people.
            In Dom’s (seldom challenged) world, not only “if a man
            doesn’t vote for Hillary, then he’s a male chauvinist”, but also: “If
            you do not agree with Obama, then you are racist.”
            Dom’s comment
            about “… not only because of her qualifications and record, but
            because it is time for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized
            and civilized world and give women the opportunities and credit they
            deserve.” is an inane and empty phrase full of the empty and MEANINGLESS
            symbolism that liberals love so much.
            If Joe The Clown Biden were
            running (pleeease God, NOO !!), Dom would be saying: ” … it is time
            for the USA to join the rest of the industrialized and civilized world and give dunces and clowns the opportunities and credit they deserve.”
            Why would anybody vote for Hillary unless she was the MOST qualified of ALL the candidates (something she obviously is not).
            Following
            Dom’s logic, “it is time” that we elect our first Mexican American, and
            8 years after that “it is about time” we elect our very first gay
            person or lesbian. Yeah, it is time, it is time, it is time …. Look what “it is time” brought us with Obama.
            Oh brother.

            Reply
          9. Dominick Vila November 1, 2014

            For the record:
            1. I believe Hillary Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate at the moment. She has the formal education, relevant experience, record, vision, and character to be a great president.
            2. I believe it is time for the USA to give qualified female candidates the same opportunities afforded to male politicians. The fact that the USA is one of a few countries in the industrialized world that has never elected a female president is an embarrassment, and the fact that people like you, implicitly, insinuate that American women are not qualified to become president is evidence of the mindset that contributes to this unfortunate record.
            3. I could care less how you, CPA, Bike, or anyone else vote or think. That’s your business.
            4. I would not mind voting for a Mexican American, a gay person, or anyone else for that matter, if that person is qualified for the office he/she is seeking.
            If my beliefs are offensive to you, that’s too bad.
            As for not being challenged, I have been challenged because of my support of illegal immigrant deportations, my opposition to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, my opinion that government officials who deliberately release sensitive information to U.S. enemies are traitors, the fact that I only support abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of proven rape and incest, etc.
            I respect the opinions of others, and try to be civil when I debate an issue with someone else, but I confess that I have a hard time keeping my cool when I discuss something with some of the right wing people that post in this and other forums. Have a nice day.

            Reply
          10. Louis Allen November 2, 2014

            Dom: To quote you: “…I have been challenged because of my support of illegal immigrant
            deportations, my opposition to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants,
            my opinion that government officials who deliberately release sensitive
            information to U.S. enemies are traitors, the fact that I only support
            abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of
            proven rape and incest, etc.”
            Wow, Dom !
            WELCOME to the Conservative movement !
            And here I was, all this time thinking that you were a liberal ….
            Congrats.

            Reply
          11. Dominick Vila November 2, 2014

            I consider myself a centrist. While some of my opinions, and the way I have conducted myself throughout my life (51 years of marriage, faithful to my wife and family, never applied for government help, paid taxes all my life, worked for 44 years and was never unemployed) fall under the realm of conservatism, I do support social programs, I believe government has an essential role in improving our standard of living and limiting corporate abuses, etc. I am also more supportive of Clinton’s and Obama’s foreign policies than W’s, or Kennedy’s or LBJ’ for that matter.

            Reply
          12. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            You bet I am. Who would do my laundry, fix my meals, mow the yard and go to work every day. A mans got to have money. How would he pay for netflix?

            Reply
          13. Dominick Vila October 31, 2014

            No, what is irresponsible is to reject the candidacies of highly qualified women because of their gender. How can anybody say that women who posses the education, experience, record and vision needed to be a successful president should not be considered, after re-electing George W. Bush?
            The fact that most Western countries in Europe, in several Latin American countries, in India and Pakistan, and in so many other parts of the world are capable of looking beyond gender when they elect their leaders, and we still dismiss highly qualified women because of their gender says more about our intellect and pragmatism than about theirs.
            Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Mikulski, and several other women with outstanding political, business and intellectual records are as capable as any of their male counterparts to be effective presidents, and they deserve a chance. Let’s face it, they can’t do worse than some of our illustrious former presidents have.

            Reply
          14. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

            Presidents are elected by a majority in the Electoral College. Since women vote, these’s no substance to the charge that men are denying them their right to be a presidential cxandidate.

            In fact, there are probably more women voters than men voters.

            Reply
          15. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            Women are to smart too vote for a woman. They know how mean they are and hard to control. Every month the country would go into DEFCON 5 and Putin would hide behind his desk.

            Reply
          16. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

            Still trying to weasel out of admitting to what you wrote, eh Dominick?

            You’re wasting a lot of words, but you don’t fool anyone. You’re obviously an adherent of the tactic “If you can’t dazzle them with footwork, bury them in bull$$$t.

            Reply
          17. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            What about Sheila Jackson Lee? Their is a gal that can take charge. The charge of the lightweight brigade.

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

          I hope your wish comes true. I am getting tired of this democracy crap.

          Reply
      2. Independent1 October 31, 2014

        What about experience, She doesn’t have much???? What kind of a nonsensical comment was that??

        Identify for me one other person in American who has been:

        .First Lady for 8 years
        .A Senator
        .The U.S. Secretary of State
        .A long time judicial advocate
        .The wife of a governor

        Plus has actually been involved in so many forms of governing, either directly or in the form of giving advice and counsel for as many years as Hillary has.

        Name me someone!!! Let’s hear it.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

          Not governing, controlling. I hope she gets elected and the democrats will never get in office again. Junta’s don’t have elected officials .

          Reply
    4. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

      Barf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
  3. itsfun October 30, 2014

    Hillary really surprised me last week, when she said I hadn’t created any jobs in my small business. I have 3 employees that may disagree with that. Seeing as how she believes government created those jobs, will the government be paying them from now on.
    Oh well what difference does it make now?

    Reply
    1. Wrily October 30, 2014

      Demand for what your business offers is what created those three jobs. Without that demand the jobs would disappear.

      Reply
      1. itsfun October 30, 2014

        Right; that’s why I started the business. What good is a business with no demand for its services? The government did not start my business, nor did it create the jobs in my small company, nor did it give me any money to start it. It only gives me regulations and taxes.

        Reply
        1. Wrily October 30, 2014

          Hillary said you didn’t create those jobs. She is correct.

          Demand created those jobs.

          Your employees are just tools you use to generate profit. If you didn’t make any money from their efforts you’d let them go.

          No one is arguing that government created those jobs.

          Regulations and taxes are the reality. They may or may not be fair in your mind, but you must still be making money or you wouldn’t be doing what your doing.

          Reply
          1. itsfun October 31, 2014

            demand didn’t pay for my building when i started – I did. demand didn’t pay for my supplies before I made one cent – I did.
            You know darn well that Hillary meant that government creates jobs, not demand. She loves big government and believes in government control of our lives.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 October 31, 2014

            Really, then who paid for it?? Did you pay for that without customers coming to whatever business you started so you could pay off the mortgage or pay back however you financed that building?? I don’t think so!!!!! You wouldn’t have been in that supposed business for 6 mos. Do you have any idea how many startups go bankrupt in the 1st year because THEY DON’T ATTRACT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS!!!

            Reply
          3. Wrily October 31, 2014

            On the contrary, Hillary quite specifically said that trickle down economics, more properly called supply side economics, does not work.

            I interpret that as meaning we should practice demand side economics.

            While I admire your ability to spot an opportunity and your ambition to pursue it, the fact is, your decision to invest in a building and supplies was based on a preexisting demand.

            Reply
          4. itsfun November 1, 2014

            My decision to start my business was based on the fact I was sick and tired of working for someone else and doing something I really like. In my “job” the days seemed like a week, now the days just fly by because I enjoy what I do. I don’t think Hillary meant to say we should practice demand side economics. I believe she wanted to show the liberals she can be left of Elizabeth Warren because she may fear her running for President. Also I believe Hillary loves big government and is a control freak.

            Reply
          5. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            I agree. She did not do a very good job of controlling little willy.

            Reply
          6. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            Give it up. Wrily is probably on low income welfare. I have had several retail businesses. The worst stumbling block was gov. regulations.

            Reply
          7. itsfun November 3, 2014

            You got that right.

            Reply
          8. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            Skimming.

            Reply
        2. Independent1 October 30, 2014

          I’ll guarantee you that before 2008 there were thousands of people like you who thought they created jobs – until, all of a sudden the ‘CUSTOMERS’ went away and they were suddenly out of business WITH NOT JOBS AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE!! Thousands of those supposed companies went belly up just like that!!!!!! BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CUSTOMERS!!

          Any nitwit with a cute idea can set up the equivalent of a lemonade stand, but they’ll be running that stand by themselves UNLESS A CUSTOMER WALKS UP TO BUY A GLASS OF LEMONADE!!

          IT’S CUSTOMERS THAT CREATE JOBS, NOT BUSINESSES!!!!!! COMPANIES RARELY IF EVER ADD A JOB UNLESS THEY BELIEVE CUSTOMERS WILL COME LOOKING FOR WHAT THEY’RE SELLING.

          AND IF THE CUSTOMERS DISAPPEAR – WHATEVER YOU BUILT WILL FALL DOWN LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS!!!! YOU DIDN’T BUILD A THING!!!!!

          Reply
          1. itsfun October 31, 2014

            You are nuts. People do create jobs. customers come from good products, good customer service, Business creates customers by providing a good product, good customer service. Those are 2 big things that keep customers coming back, not a over taxing and over regulating government. how many businesses have you started?

            Reply
          2. Independent1 October 31, 2014

            So in other words, all the thousands of businesses that went belly up and lost millions of jobs rather than creating them for almost 2 years didn’t offer good service and didn’t sell good products?? Is that it. No!! They didn’t have customers coming in the door. And there was virtually NOTHING any of these companies could do because THERE WERE NO CUSTOMERS!!!

            Reply
          3. Sand_Cat November 2, 2014

            Of course they do: when, as Independent1 said, there are customers. Customers tend to fade away when the economy goes down the toilet, and with them, the jobs. Your business likely depends upon government services to some degree, and many do almost entirely. You simply want to nit-pic Hillary’s claims because you hate Hillary. I realize that the crash of 2008 was entirely Jimmy Carter’s,Bill Clinton’s, Barney Frank’s, and Ted Kennedy’s (or anyone’s but the party that held the country in lockstep for 8 years) fault, and that the apparent slowness of the subsequent recovery had absolutely nothing to do with non-stop GOP efforts to destroy Obama and everything he attempted, but the economic recovery happened during a Democratic administration, while stagnation and ultimately disaster occurred while the GOP had its way, and 8 years to fix whatever alleged problems were “caused” by the Dems.

            Reply
          4. itsfun November 2, 2014

            Oh well what difference does it make now?

            Reply
          5. Sand_Cat November 2, 2014

            Not sure I follow, buy perhaps better I don’t ask. May your business succeed, whoever you choose to credit.

            Reply
          6. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            Would you turn me on to your pot dealer? I haven’t had a good hallucination for ages.

            Reply
          7. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            You are half correct the other half needs to be euthanized. Getting into peoples wallets is what life is all about.

            Reply
  4. Joe T October 30, 2014

    Hillary thinks this way…WHY…She’s worked nearly all her adult life in govt.
    She’s a (bless her heart) a SOB (sour old broad) EGO is why she wants to be the first woman President……VANITY controls her choices sans integrity!

    A native of Illinois, Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969 and earned a J.D.from Yale Law School in 1973. After a brief stint as a Congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas and married Bill Clinton in 1975. Rodham cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977. In 1978, she became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and in 1979 the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. The National Law Journal twice listed her as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America. As First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992 with husband Bill as Governor, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas’s education system. During that time, she was on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporations. [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

    Reply
    1. JPHALL October 30, 2014

      So what is your point? That she is an accomplished woman! That is a given.

      Reply
    2. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

      You need to check out what her duties were at rose law firm. Rainmaker.

      Reply
  5. David L. Allison October 30, 2014

    Yes, she walks with the middle class and sleeps with Monsanto and Wall Street. The major flaw I see and the reason I look for alternatives like Webb or O’Malley is her support for the MIC and the radical right wing in Israel. I wish the Democratic Party had better than “not as bad as the other guys”.

    Reply
    1. Joe T October 30, 2014

      Yeah…your right

      Reply
    2. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

      Monsanto and wall street must really be hard up if their sleeping with Hilary.

      Reply
  6. CPAinNewYork October 30, 2014

    Joe Conason can give criticism, but evidently he cannot take it.
    I received an email from him asking that I sign one of those form letters to Newsweek demanding that they retract their front page story critical of American teachers.
    This impetus for this hissy fit: Conason’s sister has been a teacher for thirty years, is a wonderful teacher and is presumably above criticism. So much for freedom of the press.

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker October 31, 2014

      Neither can you…what’s your point?

      Reply
      1. CPAinNewYork October 31, 2014

        To you? Nothing. You’re excused from understanding my comment.

        Reply
  7. Whatmeworry October 30, 2014

    When asked no one from Team Hilary can enunciate a single accomplishment as Senator or Sec of State. So if she runs on her record it will be a short campaign

    Reply
    1. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 30, 2014

      But dannnn0, that’s only your invented speculation but it’s soooo untrue

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

        Hilary has a real good record with the secret service. She is loved and cherished.

        Reply
  8. Louis Allen October 30, 2014

    This article PROVES that Joe “Conman” will say anything, no matter how contradicted by facts, to root for Killary.
    He would say the same about the liberal candidate if she was Nancy Pelosi (God forbid), or if he was Harry Reid (oh brother !), or Joe “The Clown” Biden (God, please help us ??!!)
    Joe “Conman” will say anything and the liberal (small) brains will believe anything he says (the same un-conditionals who believed Obama when he said “If you like your doctor ….”)

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat November 2, 2014

      Moron.

      Reply
      1. Louis Allen November 2, 2014

        Sand_DOG: So you ADMIT it?!

        How candid of you (that’s good DOG !)

        Reply
        1. Sand_Cat November 2, 2014

          Nice lame response., as expected.

          Reply
          1. Louis Allen November 2, 2014

            Sand_DOGGY: You would not be able to understand ANY OTHER kind.
            Keep being a moron. Don’t change.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus November 2, 2014

            You started it. But you don’t seem to have intellect to finish it. But that Okay we understand.

            Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.