rickyp wrote:She can win whether the money game is open ended or not. And yet she understands that the current situation is essentially corrosive to democracy. For that she deserves kudos.

Oh yes, she is very worried about money. In fact, you might say it is her passion.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.


But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Now, I'm not saying she's guilty of anything. However, she's going to have a tough time convincing anyone she's trying to take the money out of politics. Her career is based on the nexus between them.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Who's your second favourite Clinton btw ?

Chelsea.

Bill's your favorite?

Oh yeah.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Who's your second favourite Clinton btw ?

Chelsea.

Bill's your favorite?

Oh yeah.

Yay -- we finally agree on something!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -congress/

fate

Now, I'm not saying she's guilty of anything. However, she's going to have a tough time convincing anyone she's trying to take the money out of politics. Her career is based on the nexus between them

So is pretty much every American politician. They spend 4 hours a day raising money for the next campaign. (see link) And Hillary is very good at raising money.
That's the way the game is played...and she's playing it.
She can't do much about getting money out of politics unless she's elected. And even then what she's offering now is a constitutional amendment., A pretty difficult route.... But still, other than Elizabeth Warren, she's the only Presidential candidate of the two main parties , declared or perceived to be potential , who's raised the issue.

Fate

Now, I'm not saying she's guilty of anything

So its not a bad thing that she's able to raise 2.5 $billion? Whats the point of raising the issue if you didn't think it somehow diminished her candidacy? She's playing by the rules.
They are shitty rules. But they are the rules. And she can't be accused of hypocrisy if she plays by the rules. To do with less money, would be a self imposed handicap.

Based upon republican support for the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, it isn't unreasonable to suspect that Republicans expected unlimited money in politics to help them. It must be a shock to see what Hillary can do and what certain billionaires are willing to do for Democrats.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/181590/se ... opped-them

rickyp wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/

fate

Now, I'm not saying she's guilty of anything. However, she's going to have a tough time convincing anyone she's trying to take the money out of politics. Her career is based on the nexus between them

So is pretty much every American politician. They spend 4 hours a day raising money for the next campaign. (see link) And Hillary is very good at raising money.

Sure. When you have power and shake people down, you get money.

That's the way the game is played...and she's playing it.
She can't do much about getting money out of politics unless she's elected.

Ha! Yeah, she'll work just as hard at it as . . . Obama.

Here's the thing: she won't reform a thing until (at the very least) and unless she is elected a second time. Once she can no longer personally benefit, she might care about the issue. Maybe.

And even then what she's offering now is a constitutional amendment., A pretty difficult route....

Uh-huh. Some people will believe anything.

But still, other than Elizabeth Warren, she's the only Presidential candidate of the two main parties , declared or perceived to be potential , who's raised the issue.

Fate

Now, I'm not saying she's guilty of anything

So its not a bad thing that she's able to raise 2.5 $billion? Whats the point of raising the issue if you didn't think it somehow diminished her candidacy? She's playing by the rules.

Sorta. We used to have these rules called "campaign finance limits" that went with "Federal matching funds," but a man named Barack Obama destroyed that system. You know, the party of the common man.

They are shitty rules. But they are the rules. And she can't be accused of hypocrisy if she plays by the rules. To do with less money, would be a self imposed handicap.

Oh, like John McCain did?

I'm not accusing her of that, precisely. She appears to be guilty of selling favor to foreign countries. For example, apparently the Clinton Foundation took money from Saudi Arabia to buy mosquito nets in Africa. I suppose the Saudis couldn't do that without giving the Clintons a cut???

Her response, so far, is telling. She simply complains about the accusations and "the same old" politics. Something is "same" and "old" and it's the Clintons using their power to enrich themselves.

You say "everyone does it." Maybe, but no one has ever done it to the extent the Clintons have.

Based upon republican support for the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, it isn't unreasonable to suspect that Republicans expected unlimited money in politics to help them.

Right, because Republicans don't really believe in the First Amendment . . .

It must be a shock to see what Hillary can do and what certain billionaires are willing to do for Democrats.

You're a moron. Obama broke the system. Then we had Citizens United. Then Obama raised more than Romney. Republicans always viewed it as a speech issue. Democrats always viewed it as a bad thing that they took advantage of. You've turned it upside down.

rickyp wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

Tom Steyer added $30 million into the Yes on Proposition 39 campaign, warning opponents that “it would be impossible to wage an opposition campaign on the cheap.”[44][45]

I think he's a clear illustration of an elite using his wealth to try and control the political agenda. I don't think the fact he's an environmentalist or left leaning changes the base problem.
When money dominates the conversation, only the wealthy get a say.
The only way to really make politicians independent of their wealthy patrons is to figure out a way to either publicly fund political activity OR to place strict limits on both spending and contributions.
Until something like that happens the oligarchs will have their way, comrade.

Seriously, doesn't the notion that Clinton will raise $2.5 billion to get elected and yet she's the one candidate who's raising the issue of a constitutional amendment on political financing make an impression?
She can win whether the money game is open ended or not. And yet she understands that the current situation is essentially corrosive to democracy. For that she deserves kudos.

That was cogent and illustrative. Thank you. Now you can be more equitable and mention Steyer in the same sentence as the Koch Brothers.

Personally, I do not have a problem with people using their money for politics. There is big money on both sides. It is a wash...

Doctor Fate wrote:This would be more fun than O'Malley (hopeless) or Sanders (less than hopeless):

I had not heard this. The guy hasn't really done anything yet. I can't believe he thinks this year he's been Mayor of NYC makes him qualified to be President of the USA. It hasn't even been a good year! Bizarre.

Cuomo may be more technically qualified, but he is a complete misanthrope with monster skeletons in his closet.

The field is really thin, and that's a shame. Someone needs to challenge Hillary and Bill, if only for the fun aspect of handicapping the race.

geojanes wrote:The field is really thin, and that's a shame. Someone needs to challenge Hillary and Bill, if only for the fun aspect of handicapping the race.

In a non-partisan(ish) spirit, this is difficult to understand. How is it possible that Hillary is it? It's not like the Democrats have not won some major races over the past few years, so how is it that she is so far above anyone else?

Cynically, I would say it's all name recognition and the belief that "it's time for a woman" will carry the day. It might and it might not, but neither one of those seems reason enough to clear the field.

This almost feels like a reversed election: the Democrats all falling behind "the next in line" and the Republicans duking it out.

And, I agree about di Blasio and Cuomo. If he (Cuomo) didn't have that name (and voice), he would have lost his reelection. Some of the things he has done have been shameful, if not criminal.

I don't really know enough about the available talent at the lower levels in the Democratic party that could potentially step up, but you'd have to assume there must be several bright, personable politicians out there who could use this as a chance to really make a name for themselves. I guess they must all think it would be a wasted effort and prefer to keep their powder dry for next time.

Looking in from the outside, it strikes me that there doesn't appear to be the same sort of battle for the soul of the American left that's been convulsing the right in recent years. The Dems seem like a bit of an empty vessel from an ideological standpoint. If all they really stand for is a more moderate form of capitalism combined with liberal social attitudes (and it certainly looks that way to me) then there are not going to be many internal battles to fight. As such all that's likely to matter to them is picking the candidate who stands the best chance of beating the Republicans, and Hillary would appear to fit the bill on that score based on the available polling and her dominant fundraising position.

It's all very flat and uninspiring and I suspect it may blow up in their faces, but you never know.

Sassenach wrote:Looking in from the outside, it strikes me that there doesn't appear to be the same sort of battle for the soul of the American left that's been convulsing the right in recent years. The Dems seem like a bit of an empty vessel from an ideological standpoint. If all they really stand for is a more moderate form of capitalism combined with liberal social attitudes (and it certainly looks that way to me) then there are not going to be many internal battles to fight.

Basically, the Democrats are a machine. Just as they were, really, back in the 19th Century when they were the "conservatives" and the Republicans were the radicals and insurgents.

Seems to me that as they swapped political wings over the 20th Century, that's when all the interesting debates happened in the two main parties. But since the 1980s, the bulk of the Democratic Party, and the centre of it at the very least, is not really that ideological. I know that some think they are socialists and communists just waiting to turn the USA into Cuba, but I don't see that at all. Bill and Barack have shown a remarkable lack of real reform on much other than Health (and both parties have been saying it needs major reform since Nixon, and just tinkered at best - even "Obamacare" is tinkering heavily)

The Republicans are having ideological battles, and do have ideologies to tout. Which makes them more interesting to watch.

As such all that's likely to matter to them is picking the candidate who stands the best chance of beating the Republicans, and Hillary would appear to fit the bill on that score based on the available polling and her dominant fundraising position.

It's all very flat and uninspiring and I suspect it may blow up in their faces, but you never know.

Well, yes at the moment she does look like the best chance for a Dem third term (the first time the Democrats would get more than 8 years in the White House since FDR/Truman). Of course, that is not properly tested without a decent slate of opponents for the nomination, and a "crowning" is not always the best way to win (cf. Al Gore, . Even if she wins in Nov 16, it doesn't make for a massive base on which to build a Presidential term (cf. GHW Bush)

to address what's bee said so far, Ricky first:

So is pretty much every American politician. They spend 4 hours a day raising money for the next campaign. (see link) And Hillary is very good at raising money.
That's the way the game is played...and she's playing it.
She can't do much about getting money out of politics unless she's elected. And even then what she's offering now is a constitutional amendment., A pretty difficult route.... But still, other than Elizabeth Warren, she's the only Presidential candidate of the two main parties , declared or perceived to be potential , who's raised the issue.

Someone said she deserves kudos: I disagree. She's been a senator as well, so she too has spent a great deal of her time raising money. Believe me, she knows the money game as well as everybody else. In fact, I'd have had more respect for her if she had not said that [about the constitutional amendment]. At least then she would not sound like a total hypocrite.

And forgive me--whoever mentioned Martin O'Malley--forgive me for committing what is essentially gay heresy in Maryland, but I lived under Martin O'Malley. He prided himself on being the governor who listened. He ended up being the governor who listened to the populous parts of the state--screw everybody else. And you guys want to talk gerrymandering, as we did in that other thread? He can outdo the original Elbridge Gerry himself. Yes, he signed the same-sex marriage bill into law. Thank you very much, I'm grateful for that. But that does not excuse the remainder of his governorship, in my opinion.

O'Malley is the only Democrat to have stepped up and b****slapped Hillary on TV (figuratively speaking). I've got to lend him credit for that. But that's about it. And he's governor of Maryland for chrissakes. [coughSpiroAgnewcough]

Typically, governors make better Presidents than senators (which explains a lot of the last few years) of which, if we remember, Hillary was one. [that's another good candidate for a constitutional amendment: you should have to be a citizen of the state from which you're elected senator/representative for at least 6 years before you can get elected from there; not just move there and run for it right away....just because.]

Seems to me that as they swapped political wings over the 20th Century, that's when all the interesting debates happened in the two main parties. But since the 1980s, the bulk of the Democratic Party, and the centre of it at the very least, is not really that ideological. I know that some think they are socialists and communists just waiting to turn the USA into Cuba, but I don't see that at all. Bill and Barack have shown a remarkable lack of real reform on much other than Health (and both parties have been saying it needs major reform since Nixon, and just tinkered at best - even "Obamacare" is tinkering heavily)

Danivon, it was Richard Nixon that created the framework of Obamacare; it was never implemented (despite a Democratic Congress). Forgive me for sounding a little tart about this, but you do not have to live under it. The ACA has raided money from other departments...like Social Security Disability. I'm not getting into how I know that, but I will say, I know it to be true, and before anyone tries to argue with me, there is a good reason I know.

I can understand that, coming from a country where they have a national health care system, it sounds natural for you to find the ACA laudable without having to live with it yourselves. That is understandable. But consider for a moment, that that may be the main reason you come out in support of something you do not have to live under.

Well, yes at the moment she does look like the best chance for a Dem third term (the first time the Democrats would get more than 8 years in the White House since FDR/Truman). Of course, that is not properly tested without a decent slate of opponents for the nomination, and a "crowning" is not always the best way to win (cf. Al Gore, . Even if she wins in Nov 16, it doesn't make for a massive base on which to build a Presidential term (cf. GHW Bush)

Very sound reasoning. That gets kudos from me. But if we end up going Red in Nov 16, there's probably very other sound reasoning for it.

Sass: I cannot agree with you that the Democratic Party is non-ideological. And with what many here have been saying about the polarization of American politics; well think about that. If they are polarizing toward something, how can they be non-ideological?

So what are the deep ideological principles of the Democratic Party ? They're hardly socialists. Come over to Europe if you want to see real socialists in action.

Democrats are defined more by what they're not than by what they are or aspire to be, ie they're not Republicans. They believe in a bit higher taxation and a bit more public spending than the Republicans do. They're less overtly religious than Republicans are and have more liberal attitudes to sexual relationships, marriage rights and abortion (as a result of their less overt religiosity). They have a slightly greater faith in the power of the state to achieve change for the better. That's hardly a polar opposite to the other party in ideological terms. Both are firmly pro-capitalist. Both are in favour of high defence spending and supporters of military intervention around the world. Both are in the pockets of big business.

The polarisation that you're seeing is really just hyper-partisanship.

I disagree. While hyper-partisanship abounds, there are a lot of people who talk about the growing polarization of American politics. And that discussion certain abounds on Redscape, at any rate. Which came first? Who cares. They're the same thing at this point. I do not see the distinction.

Perhaps they're not ideological compared to parties in Europe. But for America they're ideological enough, as are the Republicans. Just perhaps not in the same exact way. Yes the two parties have different origins and perhaps even styles to some extent, but they do have their ideologies. After all, we don't vote at election time thinking "oh, I'm voting for party X because they do not really stand for anything at all..." or "I'm voting for Candidate X because his party stands for nothing....".....right?