Unions for Edwards; business as usual for Clinton

Jay, I don't mean to offend (0.00 / 0)

but that's just crap.  There are a helluva lot of pragmatics out there, who share the visions of progressives, but understand that the system is the system.  So, given the rule of law as defined by the Constitution, please tell me what reform you actually seek?  Do you wish the President to be able to enact law without the consent and will of Congress (beholden to corporate interests as they are?)  Do you desire the Executive to be able to allocate money where it is 'needed', as opposed to where Congress says it goes?

What you've just attempted to smear as "business as usual", I call the rule of law according to the Constitution.  That's the system, Jay.  If you'd like to reform it, electing a President you like won't do it.  Seriously, I ask you these questions, how do you intend to reform that system, and when the hell did Clinton say she would be Republican Lite by accepting the law as it is?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 21:25:30 PM UTC

The better question is (0.00 / 0)

How does Clinton think she is differentiating herself by acknowledging that the Constitution exists? She seems to be leveling a bullshit charge that Obama or Edwards would seek extra-Constitutional powers. Last I checked, Edwards is pledging to close Gitmo (is Clinton pledging the same? -- this is an honest question, I really don't know).

The fact that Clinton is seeking to emphasize that this separates her from her Democratic opponents is one of the biggest bullshit charges I've ever seen.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:42:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

whoa, there (0.00 / 0)

You know perfectly well I think (a) presidents aren't above the law and (b) should not be trusted under any circumstances, even -- especially -- if we like them.

The "system" Edwards refers to is not constitutional government. He's talking the current pay-for-play system of big money buying elections and politicians and shutting average folks out of government. Clinton deliberately misconstrued Edwards' argument by claiming he would act extra-constitutionally.

Look at the fundraising numbers, see who Senator Clinton is taking money from, and you'll get a good idea of who she'll govern for. Hint: it ain't you or me.

Where's Mark T when you need him?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 16:43:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's just not honest (0.00 / 0)

I share your disdain for Lobbyist driven politics (the road to fascism begins with the meld of corporate and state) but:

a)  I don't see anywhere that Sen. Clinton misconstrued Edward's arguments, and

b)  She certainly didn't claim that he would act un-constitutionally.  If anything, she implied that he would be ineffective.  That's vastly different.

And my two questions still stand as asked.  How do you (or better yet, Edwards) intend to reform the system, and when did Clinton say she would be Republican lite (many definitions called for there, including a utile definition of being a Democrat, I suppose.)?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:28:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton... (0.00 / 0)

She started her quote by saying, yeah, she's part of the system, but she's working "within the Constitution," implying that to be "outsiders," as Obama and Edwards claim for themselves, is to act extra-constitutionally.

Edwards supports lobbying reform and campaign finance reform, including supporting pubically-funded elecitons -- huge, IMHO. I think the latter would effectively end corporate domination in our public affairs... (Edwards is not accepting lobbyist money in his presidential bid.)

Sure, it wouldn't be smooth sailing. It might get stalled in a Congress addicted to its perks, but as President, he'd have a lot more sway in the matter than if he were a former presidential candidate, and Hillary President.

Clinton, on the other hand, is raking it in, hand over fist, from corporate donors and lobbyists. She's actually quite liberal on social issues -- more than Edwards on some -- but I consider her "Republican lite" because of her support of, and by, big money donors.

I've always thought of Democrats as the party of working- and middle-class people dedicated to egalitarianism, open government, and equality for all under the law. Republicans have always seemed to me the party of $. Protecting monied interests. Period. No other principle than that. (In that twisted world view, then, the social conservative stuff was just a way to sucker conservative Christians onto the big money bandwagon...)

I don't really see Clinton as invested in making real changes in the system as it is. Sure, she'd play the current pay-for-play system with the best, and would actually get a lot of legislation passed...like closing some tax loopholes and opening others, instead of reforming the tax code; withdrawing most troops from Iraq, but leaving bases there for perpetuity; creating more equitable trade agreements, instead of scrapping fast-track trade authority and our free trade agreements.

In other words, she'd get a lot of legislation done, but there'd be change only in amount, not in kind. Status quo, but a tad bit better.

Seems like a lot of sh*t is going down, and we need some serious change.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:03:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pragmatic and progressive are not polarities (0.00 / 0)

I am not proposing a campaign slogan for Hillary Clinton or anyone else with the above subject line, but I agree with Wulfgar! He is asking not only precise, but relevant, questions here: " Do you wish the President to be able to enact law without the consent and will of Congress (beholden to corporate interests as they are?) Do you desire the Executive to be able to allocate money where it is 'needed', as opposed to where Congress says it goes?" An additional question from me at this point would be: "Don't we already have that with Bushco, Inc.?"

---

by: Bob @ Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 23:17:58 PM UTC