RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Sirota writes: "Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders."

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Michael Dwyer)
Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Michael Dwyer)


Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: They Have Less in Common Than You Think

By David Sirota, Salon

01 August 14

 

Hillary's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe she's a real populist. It's simply not true

illary Clinton’s political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and they’ve been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. There’s just one problem: That’s not true.

Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clinton’s relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same.

“Ask any so-called ‘left’ or ‘liberal’ critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree,” said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper.

OK, fine. I’ll take the challenge; there are many differences between these two politicians.

For example, in her book, “The Two Income Trap,” Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill’s provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.

“As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. … The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.”

Additionally, Warren has been a critic of so-called free trade deals, which create regulatory protections for patents and copyrights, but remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for various free trade pacts during her Senate tenure.

Clinton was also a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coinciding with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton’s position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor.

There is also Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported.

Clinton, of course, has attempted to distance herself from her previous positions. In 2008, she said, “I should not have voted for that bankruptcy law.” That year, she also said she believes the NAFTA free trade model needs to be “adjusted.” And in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices,” Clinton says of her Iraq War vote: “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

The reversals certainly position Clinton closer to the base of the Democratic Party. But, as then-Sen. Barack Obama’s criticism of Clinton on these issues proved in 2008, her retrospective apologies and admissions do not necessarily wipe the record clean for Democratic voters, especially when she’s raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from financial firms.

If she does face Warren in 2016, Clinton’s record will likely once again be center stage, regardless of the recent contrition.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-3 # Dust 2014-08-01 12:20
We need Don Quixote.
 
 
+45 # tedrey 2014-08-01 13:12
Who stood up for Dennis Kucinich, who was the man from La Mancha as ever was?
 
 
+81 # DurangoKid 2014-08-01 13:41
One of Kucinich's major obstacles is that the political discourse in the United States of Amnesia is so far removed from reality that to speak the truth sounds like a foreign language. The political class speaks PoliSpeak and Denis speaks in plain English. Hence, Kucinich sounds like a nutter because the assumption is that sane people use PoliSpeak. For the political class it's irksome to have to be subjected to reality or its close approximation. This is one reason why Kucinich failed to reach a critical mass of support. Another might be that to the few who understood him, his message was often antithetical to capital accumulation, which is blasphemy.
 
 
+14 # RLF 2014-08-02 05:35
The other problem is that liberals are smart and assume others are also but they just want to hear slogans and liberals have refused. We need simple catchy slogans that are repeated ad naseum.
 
 
0 # kalpal 2014-08-06 05:08
Exile the RW, exile the RW. Is that a catchy slogan?
 
 
+7 # Douglas Jack 2014-08-02 12:32
Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown & Bernie Sanders voted for the recent US Congress motion support for Israel in its continuing genocide & massacres against Gazans.

Considering the recent FALSE-FLAG neocon/AIPAC/PN AC/NED created destabilization incidents in:
- Libya (AlCIAda financed mercenary massacres),
- Syria (AlCIAda financed mercenary attacks of Sarin gas),
- Ukraine (neocon financed NAZI mercenaries (Victoria Nuland boasted 5 billion, Maidan sniper & violence to avoid scheduled election),
- Iraq, Afghanistan atrocity/war-cr imes &
- neocon destabilization efforts in over 80 sovereign nations worldwide,
The earth & its people don't need another AIPAC financed agent like Warren going through the learning curve, even if she might get to the point at the end of her presidency like Eisenhower or Kennedy who finally figured out what the Finance-Media-M ilitary-Industr ial-Legislative -Complex are up to after they participated in the massacres.

I hope RSN readers realize that since colonial invasion & the false white, male, landowner 'revolution' in 1776, the only difference has been intensified genocide of people & destruction of biosphere worldwide in our endless stealing, extraction & exploitation. We need to acknowledge & emulate the real Economic Democracy & sovereignty of 1st Nations. A paradigm shift isn't coming from an AIPAC financed politician like Warren. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
 
 
-69 # fredboy 2014-08-01 12:50
Hillary will continue the 1992-present Goldman Sachs presidency and kill us economically, while Warren will bore voters silly and thus hand it to the GOPthugs.

Dems, go find an amazing, strong, brilliant, beautiful, dynamic, creative, courageous women and let's elect a great president!
 
 
+73 # tswhiskers 2014-08-01 13:28
fredboy, from your description, sounds like Warren will get a lot of votes come Nov.
 
 
+106 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2014-08-01 13:35
Evidently, Fredboy, you wouldn't recognize "an amazing, strong, brilliant, beautiful, dynamic, creative, courageous women" if she walked up to you and put her hand down your pants.

Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated more logic, reason and gumption than all of Washington put together. She won't bore voters, she will inspire them.
 
 
+21 # Lowflyin Lolana 2014-08-01 16:48
Quoting Reductio Ad Absurdum:
Evidently, Fredboy, you wouldn't recognize "an amazing, strong, brilliant, beautiful, dynamic, creative, courageous women" if she walked up to you and put her hand down your pants.


I blew coffee out my nose laughing at this one.
 
 
+3 # JCM 2014-08-01 20:42
Mrs. Obama
 
 
+76 # lisamoskow 2014-08-01 13:13
Warren is very good with domestic issues. Never heard a peep from her about foreign issues.

Hillary is a hawk and hasn't done much to stand up for ordinary citizens.
 
 
+8 # Marvin Mandell 2014-08-02 06:51
Quoting lisamoskow:
Warren is very good with domestic issues. Never heard a peep from her about foreign issues.
[quote name="lisamoskow"]Warren is very good with domestic issues. Never heard a peep from her about foreign issues.

Hillary is a hawk and hasn't done much to stand up for ordinary citizens.

True. Internationally Warren,like Bernie Sanders,
has been lockstep w/AIPAC--
total support for Apartheid
Israel.Marvin Mandell
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2014-08-04 11:33
Didn't Hillary try to get Universal Healthcare for the ordinary citizen?
 
 
+30 # DurangoKid 2014-08-01 13:20
I still maintain the institution of the presidency is more important than the presidents who hold the office. Both Liz and Hillary will be constrained by the same institutional limits. They will have to serve capital accumulation or be out on their ears. In that regard, Hillary will be a more "successful" president. Liz will likely be the female equivalent of Jimmy Carter: a well meaning misfit. If you're dreaming of Liz as an incarnation of FDR, well, you're dreaming. That kind of progressivism will likely never happen again.

Of course, I could be wrong. Let's say Liz gets elected and every time she proposes something good, millions of people rally in every city in support. Or, if her programs are attacked by the usual bunch of do-nothing Republicans, those same millions hit the streets and bring the country to a halt as in a general strike by all the workers. If that were the case, an Elizabeth Warren presidency might be interesting.
 
 
+26 # dsfingers 2014-08-01 16:59
We needed the possibility of a Bolshevik type revolution to scare the pants off of Wall Street enough to terrorize them into allowing a New Deal type of offering which they promptly regretted and worked tirelessly to undo and set up the machinery to prevent. Three reasons why that will never happen are 1)Marketing (brainwashing/p ropaganda/adver tizing if you will) is way too good and costly so controlled by the Wall Street and the Right wing think tanks. Probably the most life changing thing of the 20th century. 2) privatization of and technological investment into the military, leaving such an event hopelessly outgunned. 3) the gradual whittling down of the economy and the middle class and the demonizing of the poor so there's no sudden shock to the economy like there was in the Depression that created a commonality amongst those most hurt by it, and so people distance themselves from one another and fail to see their interconnection and interdependence .
The politics of all this is just a distraction.
 
 
+29 # cmp 2014-08-01 13:24
What's the olde saying?
"The super rich, have 2 Parties.. Where's ours??"

It will take a tremendous amount of real "grass roots" to overcome the monopoly machine of politics that is owned solely by the super rich...

We are all going to have work awfully hard for someone who is "different."

Is Hillary different? It's been over 20 years.. Is their a "person with a pulse" that would still believe that she is???

hahaha!
 
 
+33 # tswhiskers 2014-08-01 13:27
I'm glad to read of some concrete differences between Clinton and Warren. I've had the "feeling" that Clinton is more conservative than Warren, just because Warren championed the Consumer protection Bureau and because Clinton did vote for the Iraq War. If the two were to face off in a primary, I'd vote for Warren unquestionably. But, given all the craziness on the Conservative side of the aisle, I'd vote for Hillary against any Republican. We used to have to choose between 2 mediocre nonentities, R or D. But since the 1990's and the Reps.' mad rush to the right, and then righter still with each election, assuming one doesn't fall for Fox News craziness, how else can one vote but Dem.?
 
 
+29 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 14:50
Quoting tswhiskers:
I'm glad to read of some concrete differences between Clinton and Warren. I've had the "feeling" that Clinton is more conservative than Warren, just because Warren championed the Consumer protection Bureau and because Clinton did vote for the Iraq War. If the two were to face off in a primary, I'd vote for Warren unquestionably. But, given all the craziness on the Conservative side of the aisle, I'd vote for Hillary against any Republican. We used to have to choose between 2 mediocre nonentities, R or D. But since the 1990's and the Reps.' mad rush to the right, and then righter still with each election, assuming one doesn't fall for Fox News craziness, how else can one vote but Dem.?


--- Don't complain about only having a two party duopoly. It is We the People who have made it so and are keeping it so.

There are other options available, like draft Kucinich or vote Green Party but We the Sheeple can't imagine doing anything different, and then wonder why things are always the same.

Remember: Nothing Changes If Nothing Changes!!!
 
 
+23 # Texas Aggie 2014-08-01 15:30
It is difficult to blame voters if the electoral system is set up to perpetuate a two party system. Countries with more than two parties have different systems than we do, usually parliamentary systems, where parties are awarded seats according to the percentage of votes that they get. In other words, even if you only get 15% of the votes, you still get some representation. That doesn't happen in our system.
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 23:15
Quoting Texas Aggie:
It is difficult to blame voters if the electoral system is set up to perpetuate a two party system. Countries with more than two parties have different systems than we do, usually parliamentary systems, where parties are awarded seats according to the percentage of votes that they get. In other words, even if you only get 15% of the votes, you still get some representation. That doesn't happen in our system.


--- I don't agree and I stand by what I said. No one is holding a gun to anybody's head. If there was a mass exodus into the Independent Party no one would be completely freaked out, but suggest the Green Party and suddenly everyone gets cold feet. And then I listen to the laundry lists of things that people say they want and such a party exists that stands for all of it but just lacks the following. But, en masse, no one has the backbone to step outside the box and make that statement a reality. Like I said, We the Sheeple would rather be pack animals all staying together under fire than get up and get out to elicit REAL change. It's exhausting watching so many people be so inert.
 
 
+5 # ericlipps 2014-08-01 17:25
It's not quite that simple. The Constitution's requirement that a presidential candidate receive a straight majority of electoral-colle ge votes to win virtually guarantees a two-party system, and we have had one since the 1790s.

As for a proportional representation system, that has pitfalls of its own. It can lead to coalition governments which result in extreme candidates ending up in the presidency or its equivalent--whi ch is how Hitler ended up chancellor of Germany ad in a position to make himself absolute dictator.
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 23:19
Quoting ericlipps:
It's not quite that simple. The Constitution's requirement that a presidential candidate receive a straight majority of electoral-college votes to win virtually guarantees a two-party system, and we have had one since the 1790s.

As for a proportional representation system, that has pitfalls of its own. It can lead to coalition governments which result in extreme candidates ending up in the presidency or its equivalent--which is how Hitler ended up chancellor of Germany ad in a position to make himself absolute dictator.


--- Then isn't it time America got it together to change what needs to be changed to get democracy back and make the system work? But no, people just sit around moaning and complaining but when you ask them to do something different, oh well, we can't do that; my shoe laces are tied together and the sun is in my eyes. We need to take a leaf from the notebook of the French and if we don't want or like what's going on then everybody out into the streets, but we are our own worst enemies. How does anyone think all of this Fascist rubbish got the foothold it has without our tacit participation?
 
 
+2 # tswhiskers 2014-08-02 00:40
Westwinds, you might check Wikipedia or a poli sci textbook. There you will find that while there have been numerous 3d parties started in the 19th and 20th centuries, they rarely had any real success except when running on single issues. Without a lasting political base most have little chance of winning elections. Most recently Ross Perot had an amazing success in 1992 when he ran against Clinton and H.W. Bush. But he only gained ca. 19 or 20% of the vote. Nader is another who has gained only small percentages of the vote on the Green Party ticket. For years in the 1950's and '60's Harold Stassen was a standard joke in comedians' routines because he ran every 4 yrs. with no hope of winning elections. Considering the huge amts. of money needed to run for state and federal office these days it is even more unrealistic for a 3d party candidate to think of running. Sorry, but history and financial realities are strongly against 3d parties.
 
 
+15 # AMLLLLL 2014-08-01 16:35
Hillary also, as Sec of State, was pressuring the EU to go GMO UGH.
 
 
+10 # Lowflyin Lolana 2014-08-01 16:56
OMG, WTF.
 
 
+25 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 13:38
The only difference between s Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is night and day.

If Warren ran against Clinton she would easily win against Clinton. Clinton has voted with and supported the Right and all of the things we are trying to get rid of, while Warren, for whatever her faults may be in the minds of some, represents progress forward and it's progress not perfection we need.
 
 
+1 # Seadog 2014-08-01 14:16
"the global banking industry is owned and operated by Jewish members" Really? Where did you read that? Its nonsense.
 
 
+1 # CAMUS1111 2014-08-01 14:48
yeah, it's the pesky fictional Jew syndrome--don't worry about the facts
 
 
+2 # CAMUS1111 2014-08-01 14:51
in case I was not clear-- I was agreeing with Seadog's assessment of the previous comment
 
 
+4 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 15:13
And I suppose Greenspaan and Bernanke are examples of Hawaiian names?
 
 
+16 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-08-01 13:42
Politics is the science of perception. What you see (and hear) is not what you necessarily get. Earl Nightengale:"Ge nius is fixity of purpose made strong by fine observation." The more I see, (and hear) frankly, I'll support Warren. Frankly, today, there is not much difference in either political party. Hell, 100 % of members of the senate just voted war blood money, Israel. Did you read about this in your local newspaper. Hell no.

Although, I think Warren could make a difference.
 
 
-2 # oprichniki 2014-08-01 13:47
How about Slick Hillary?
 
 
+11 # Buddha 2014-08-01 14:49
Funny article to be posted here on RSN, I think any in the aware Progressive Left knows this truth innately. And those who aren't aware of this, the "low information voter", aren't reading Salon OR RSN, for which Hillary is eternally grateful.
 
 
+5 # chapina 2014-08-01 15:46
Well, they both give unqualified support to Israel, even during this massacre in Gaza.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2014-08-01 17:40
Quoting chapina:
Well, they both give unqualified support to Israel, even during this massacre in Gaza.


Yeah, but Warren may be open to argument, Hillary demonstrably is not. She has a track record that on the issue that Warren does not as yet.

However, Warren really is not ready to be president. She needs more experience and she has to develop foreign policy positions and we need a chance to evaluate those positions before deciding on whether or not to give her the presidency.
 
 
0 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-08-03 07:37
"However, Warren is not ready to be president. She needs more experience....."

A human resource person is offered several applications for a job. Narrows down to two. One person, has years of experience but has no formal training for the job. The other has the formal training for the job, but no experience. Which person was hired by the resource person? She choose the one who has the training. Why? Resource manager:"The person who had experience only has spent most of her time making mistakes. And learned from making mistakes. The person who has the formal training will make mistakes, but lots less than the one who learned only with on-the-job training."
 
 
+5 # bobby t. 2014-08-01 16:01
On the money again great Buddha. However, I make Liz ten to one against. But then, all of life is 8 to 5 against too. Wonder if I can see the London odds. Must be up already. Will ask my son. He lives in England and worked for the BBC. Fell in love with Warren a few years ago. Too good to be true.
 
 
+11 # George D 2014-08-01 16:04
It's easy to bash a person's voting record, and I won't demonize Hillary for those actions. Somewhere between "what we want" and "what we can get" is the logic that leads to a law. Too easy to be Monday morning QB's.

My problem with Hillary is that she just seems to stumble through her roles; Not being all that notable for taking a proactive stance and fighting for it; Just sorta "goin' where the tide takes her".

Elizabeth Warren may not be an "expert" at foreign affairs, but then, who the hell is? Because if it took "experts" to allow GWB and Cheney to screw up the entire world and take down the US so easily, I don't want to hear from ANY of those "experts" ever again.

The wars, the "debt", immigration, etc, are all BS topics. The REAL WAR on America (and the world) is the one that Elizabeth Warren has been passionately fighting. As President, she won't start out with her list of "gimmes" but she will compromise. I don't see her as anything but a very intelligent, very passionate, fighter for the cause of middle class Americans and THAT cause has no "party" affiliation.

If she runs, she can win.

And honestly; Joe Biden has been kicked in the media from every direction and he doesn't deserve it. As VP again? Why not? As President? Maybe; If Liz is the VP.

Bernie Sanders? Maybe. But he won't attract the votes that Elizabeth will get.
 
 
+6 # Blackjack 2014-08-01 17:28
Well, here's another difference between Clinton and Warren. Warren does not tell blatant bold-faced lies. Clinton just told another one when she said there was no difference in her and Warren.
 
 
+6 # Caliban 2014-08-01 19:11
Except that Clinton didn't say this. It was a political aide. Read more carefully, please.
 
 
+2 # glyde 2014-08-01 23:02
It comes to the same thing.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2014-08-04 11:41
Remember that glyde when someone attributes what someone else has said to you.
 
 
-1 # Blackjack 2014-08-01 20:09
She HAS said it. There's more reading to be done than what is in this article!
 
 
+7 # drew 2014-08-01 20:31
Elizabeth Warren: the Teddy Roosevelt of our day. But it's not enough to have a good President. Obama is very good, but totally hamstrung by insane & dangerous Rethuglicans who for some reason still run close in elections even though they haven't been a legitimate party for years. Their platform is greed, violence, suppressing the rights of others and killing the planet. Their tactics are to lie, divide, fear-monger, lie, scapegoat, speak in wild hyperbole then lie some more. The fact that they've gotten away with it and wreaked all the havoc they have on the country for so many years now makes me wonder if humanity is really gonna survive after all.
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2014-08-01 23:28
I don't see how you can say Obama is very good considering he's a Constitutional scholar who has violated the Constitution (starting with the FISA vote,) so many time I've lost count.

And then he was running around with Rahm Emanuel having all of these G-summit meetings (as reported by Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman) which turns out to be by-invitation-o nly to countries around the world to get them on board with driving all of the money into the hands of the 1%, aka "austerity". Talk about back stabber...

And then he was having secret meeting with the head industrialists in a diner across the street from the WH so there would be no record of his consorting with them while refusing to meet with the labor leaders.

And then he gave away our Solar Energy edge to China, helped ship jobs overseas, and wants to gut jobs in America via TPP.

He has also bailed out the rich guys on MORE of our money, given us a mandatory health insurance (not health care) system and played us all for fools to get into office in the first place.

He may be handsome and charming but I want someone to perform their office properly for the best of the many and not just 1% of the population.

Sorry, but for me, this doesn't add up to anything good. This guy boils my blood.
 
 
+3 # Caliban 2014-08-03 18:51
WestWinds: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read and learn.

Until the SCOTUS says so, the FISA laws ARE Constitutional.

Any President would rightfully be considered incompetent or lazy who DID NOT attend--or have high Cabinet officials--at world economic meetings.

A secret meeting in a diner? Is this some kind of joke? And the President has met many times with labor leaders on issues that affect workers.

The President has supported solar energy--and continues to do so--despite fierce opposition from frackers, coal companies, and Republicans (same thing, really). China doesn't have Republicans, but our top solar companies are the best in the world.

Some health insurance is better than no health insurance--henc e the need for the ACA.

The bank bailout certainly helped the 1%, but unless you have all your money, retirement funds etc in your mattress, saving the banks also saved you, me, and lots of others.

"This guy boils [your] blood". That's because there is a real world out there that the President has to deal with, but you only have the demented fantasies in your own skull. That's what should "boil your blood".
 
 
+10 # jamoke 2014-08-01 21:25
I dont want Hilary Clinton as President, she is another corporate democrat, bought, and paid for, she is not a progressive, and her husband fucked working, and poor people to death, as well as signing of the media to be taken over by 5 corporations, i could go on, but wont.
 
 
+11 # Thirdeye 2014-08-02 08:38
Hillary was on the Wal-Mart board of directors when they financed Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign. Soon as Bill was in office, he opened trade relations with China, and Wal-Mart stocked shelves with cheap goods from China. It's obvious that the whole cozy arrangement was set up from the start. Now that Wal-Mart is the poster child for employee abuse, how can Hillary pretend to support poor workers?
 
 
+4 # WestWinds 2014-08-02 14:16
Quoting Thirdeye:
Hillary was on the Wal-Mart board of directors when they financed Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign. Soon as Bill was in office, he opened trade relations with China, and Wal-Mart stocked shelves with cheap goods from China. It's obvious that the whole cozy arrangement was set up from the start. Now that Wal-Mart is the poster child for employee abuse, how can Hillary pretend to support poor workers?


--- Excellent question, #Thirdeye.
 
 
+7 # Blackjack 2014-08-02 15:35
You Obama and Hillary apologists are part of the problem. Wake up and smell the coffee. These two care about: Wall St. over Main St., warmongering over diplomacy, hedging over honesty, and self promotion over nation building (ours!) Has Obama been hamstrung by Republicans? Yes, of course. Has he been demonized by Fixed News? Without a doubt. Has he been taunted by racists? Undeniably. He didn't expect this? If not, then why not? Has he also received the benefit of the doubt so many times that it is now almost expected. Have people wanted him to succeed so badly that they will bury their heads in the sand rather than admit how few his accomplishments have really been? My point is that yes, he's probably taken more heat than any president in recent history, but he has also had more excuses made for him. Somewhere along the line, if this country is to rebound, we've got to stop "hoping" and start acting to change things for the better. It starts with the grassroots.
 
 
+1 # Sweet Pea 2014-08-04 13:20
Elizabeth Warren has proven her above-average-a bility in recognizing the problems of this country along with her above-average ability in solving the problems.
 
 
0 # kalpal 2014-08-06 05:12
Since Warren denies she is running while HRC is playing coy, the fanatsies you are indulging in are silly.

We will know in early 2015 who is running. The GOP has Mr. Nobody and his VP Invisible Boy.

The Dems can run any mangy dog and win.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN