The Deafening Silence of Hillary Clinton

As regular readers know, I’ve been going on about Hillary Clinton and the 2016 race for a while.

Is it too early to think about it?

Not if this matters:

I’m not making a point with this, just passing it on. The 2016 election is going to be pivotal in American history. The president elected then will have just one job — deal with climate change, with a tool box nearly emptied by his or her predecessors. It’s well worth your time watching who ends up in the (sorry) hot seat. If you care about this stuff like I do, you might even help out, starting, well, now.

After all, the choices we make in the next three or four years — or allow to be made for us — will live with us for the rest of the century. Gets my attention anyway.

Or this:

[T]he very best [the Robert Rubins of the Democratic Party] can hope for is a newbie who can lie, pretend to be something he’s not, a man or woman without a track record. (Remind you of someone? Obama in 2008, Kid “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can”?) That brings out the Hopeful and swells the numbers. Otherwise they just have to go with what’s available and roll the dice. By 2012 no one was Hoping, certainly not in great numbers, not after four years of Grand Bargains and promises betrayed (do click; it’s a stunning list). Many were just voting not-Romney, those who voted at all.

… Keep the above in mind when scoping out the 2016 race. We have a neoliberal front-runner with a track record and an unwillingness to speak on most issues. Where’s the turnout going to come from?

Indeed. If Dems put the third coming of Barack Obama on offer in 2016, where’s the turnout going to come from? Regardless of what you think of this or that candidate, if you’re a progressive, you care about progressive policies, especially as we near the climate crisis tipping point, or the one-percent looting point of no return.

And if you’re a Dem Party stalwart (“my party, right — or even to the right of that”), you care about winning. Can you put Barack Obama up a third time, or Bill Clinton (minus the preternatural charisma) up a fifth time, and expect to waltz off with a win? After all, the Republicans may just find a candidate who isn’t a tomato can this time. Then where will Democrats be?

The Deafening Silence of Hillary Clinton

Of course, if Hillary Clinton wants to be the candidate, she can put all this to rest by coming out as a progressive, at least with her statements. (I know, statements; but still.) Yet the statements are not coming out. She’s not spoken on any topic of interest to progressives, save peace with Iran, and that only after all the AIPAC dust had settled and the pro-Likud lobby had lost its death grip on the Senate.

Hillary texting for climate advice. Can we have a text too please?

Hillary texting for climate advice. Can we have a text too please?

Where’s Hillary, on these and a host of other issues? Guy Saperstein, one of the stalwarts behind the Sierra Club and one of the stalwarts as well in the Dem-donor Democracy Alliance, is asking the same questions (click the link if you want to read about an interesting public confrontation involving Saperstein and Bill Clinton).

Guy recently published a piece at Alternet to try to draw Ms. Clinton out (my emphasis):

The Deafening Silence of Hillary Clinton

The implicit Dem favorite for the 2016 presidential elections, Clinton is mum on the issues that matter.

Many Democrats these days are ready to anoint Hillary Clinton as the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, although that election is more than two years away. And many of her closest supporters want everyone to think she is inevitable. But if Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic candidate, shouldn’t she be telling us what she thinks about important issues?

Clinton has been speaking to Wall Street and apparently providing it with assurances that she won’t rock the boat. She has given two speeches to Goldman Sachs, one to private equity firm KK&R and another to the Carlyle Group. She was paid $200,000 for each of her Goldman Sachs speeches … While Hillary has been reassuring Wall Street, has she told any of us what her positions on financial regulation are? … Do we know what her position is on the Keystone Pipeline or what she would do about impending climate change? … Has she even led on foreign policy issues, her area of expertise?

Like many of you, I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, but if Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic standard­bearer, we deserve to know what she stands for, who she will fight for and where she wants to take the country.

There’s more in the piece; it’s a very good read.

And here’s Guy to explain his reasoning in a nice interview with Matt Filipowicz. Listen — it’s brief and to the point:

Where’s Hillary? Those who want to see the “transformative” first woman president had better be hoping this is not the only reason to vote for her. If you’re a Clinton fan, please, help draw her out. She needs to be more than Barack Obama — he of the mighty, transformative disappointment — or that First Woman crown will be tarnished stuff.

Because, folks, if Hillary is both the “first woman president” and also “the one with the last clear chance” who handed the climate to her Oil and Tar Club friends, well … that’s not a crown I would wish on anyone, friend or otherwise. As life in the U.S. degrades and degrades, people will remember names, I promise. And some of those folks, including Ms. Clinton I hope, will live to see the results of their reputations, whatever they are.

Is it time for Hillary to speak out? How could it hurt (one wonders)?


Twitter: @Gaius_Publius
Facebook: Gaius Publi

(Facebook note: To get the most from a Facebook recommendation, be sure to Share what you also Like. Thanks.)

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

80 Responses to “The Deafening Silence of Hillary Clinton”

  1. pvequalkt says:

    I think I made this reply on another cross-posting site last week. It bears repeating perhaps.
    Hillary has the biggest polling lead of anyone ever at this stage. She has this lead in spite of having remained mute on virtually every contemporary issue, even though she has a RECORD on most of them and rational observers should have no doubt as to her actual positions (hint: they’re not anywhere near where voters need her to be).
    At this point, she can only HARM her polling if she opens her mouth.
    If she talks progressive, the right will stage a crucifixion. If she tells the truth, the voters she needs will be seriously disillusioned. She knows not to divulge anything the right will freak our about. And she certainly knows it is better to disillusion her voters AFTER they’ve already voted.
    Besides, she is talking to the REALLY important people (to her run). She’s been vowing that nothing at all will change vis-à-vis wall street and the plutonomy.
    Personally, I don’t care what she says nor to whom. I’m not voting for her under any circumstances.

  2. Gumby says:

    We are fucked no matter what. Bernie Sanders at least will bring issues into the debates front and center.

  3. basenjilover says:

    No, I do not refrain from voting. I vote and always have. I simply write in Bernie’s name if he is not on ballot. The last election I voted for Jill Stein.

  4. Silver_Witch says:

    Perhaps word of mouth, small contributors that are really frustrated with the status quo…or maybe a miracle…..don’t make me weep BillFromDover.

  5. BillFromDover says:

    I love Bernie, but in all seriousness, how is someone that shuns contributions from big money like Wall Street and fossil fuels supposed to compete with the likes of the Koch brothers?

    For better or worse, Hillary is beholden to Wall Street.

  6. BillFromDover says:

    How sad is it that voting for president of the United states of America now boils down to who sucks the less?

  7. BillFromDover says:

    So, I assume as a good progressive, you will simply refrain from voting?

  8. BillFromDover says:

    I don’t remember the last Rodham dynasty.

    Perhaps, you could expound?

  9. BillFromDover says:

    And you guys elected Reagan exactly why?

  10. BillFromDover says:

    If you were Ms. Clinton, would you rock the boat ( at this stage ) by taking a position on anything that the likes of Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest of right-wing talk-radio assholieism are eagerly awaiting to pounce?

  11. BloggerDave says:

    Because climate change is the most pressing issue facing the United States? Don’t make me laugh…

  12. Hue-Man says:

    Ms. Clinton is 66 years old and probably preparing – again – for one of the most gruelling marathons in the world electoral process. After the stress of her last job, she should be working on her physical fitness in preparation for the contest. In case you’d forgotten, here’s wiki:

    “In December 2012, Clinton was hospitalized for a few days for treatment of a blood clot in her right transverse venous sinus, a vein within the head that allows blood to drain from the brain.”

    Even if you believe the reports that she has made a full recovery, she cannot afford to have a health scare on the campaign trail.

    Her second priority should be to settle her position on the important issues based on a Bill Clinton-like briefing of the facts and political considerations of each issue. This leads then to a campaign strategy.

    Nowhere in this list of priorities does “public pronouncements on policy” figure.

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    “Personally, I don’t think that a sizeable portion of the 142 million employed people in this country are itching for “mass strikes and mass actions”. But, that’s just an opinion.” Fortunately, as I pointed out above, working people are paying less and less attention to the right.

  14. Jim Olson says:

    Hillary is a private citizen at the moment. She hasn’t announced. She does not have to say anything about anything. Until she does, she’s perfectly entitled to remain silent on world matters. In fact, she is probably wise to do so.

  15. Sameboat1 says:

    I suspect she is awaiting the results of the midterms before announcing, so she will know what positions to take. It’s all politics, all the time for the Clintons, the Bushes, and their ilk. It has been a long time since the country has seen anyone of true character or integrity in the Oval Office; I’m not sure it’s possible for one to even get there. We thought we might have it with Obama, and yes, he has done some good things, usually grudgingly, after “evolving”, but mostly he’s just been a placeholder. And the country needs so much more than that

  16. cole3244 says:

    there are some options on the left but the chances of them getting considered in this right wing nation of fools and opportunists is slim and none.

    i will die never having seen a real liberal get to govern for the people and by the people.

  17. magster says:

    Disagree. Having lived through the Nader purity push that resulted in 8 years of Bush only to reclaim the presidency with someone as centrist as Gore (if not more so) and thinking the country is still better for it compared to McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan, I think 1/8 of a step forward every four years is better than 2 steps back with the alternative. I want a great leap forward too, but Hillary will likely be the party nominee. I don’t want to start a war here. I get the Obama and Clinton suck argument. I just think the argument that the alternative sucks a whole lot more is more persuasive.

  18. perljammer says:

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the February, 2014 employment figures say that the “Civilian labor force” is made up of 155.5 million people, of whom 143.5 million are employed; 8 million of the employed are working part time for “economic reasons” (e.g., that’s all they could find), and 19 million are working part time for “noneconomic reasons” (e.g., they’re working because they want to, not because they need to).

    That 155.5 million number is sufficiently close to Bill_P’s 158 million number for me to assume that he’s talking about the size of the civilian labor force when he talks about workers. Of course, that would include pretty much everyone pulling down a paycheck, which would make a lot of the top 1% “workers”, which may not be what Bill_P intended. On the other hand, 1% is a tiny fraction of the whole, so maybe we’re just disregarding them entirely.

    The BLS defines the civilian labor force as “the sum of employed and unemployed persons. Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.” I believe that the number of people not classified as employed or unemployed is mostly made up of people under the age of 16 and people at or above retirement age, although it appears that people at or above retirement age who are employed are counted as part of the labor force.

    Personally, I don’t think that a sizeable portion of the 142 million employed people in this country are itching for “mass strikes and mass actions”. But, that’s just an opinion.

  19. Silver_Witch says:

    I was trying to be polite….

  20. nicho says:

    Every word that comes out of Hillary’s mouth is run by 12 political consultants, 5 pollsters, 18 focus groups, and the New Gingrich school of how to use language to hoodwink the public.

  21. nicho says:

    Republican Light? Hardly. She’ll make Reagan look like FDR.

  22. nicho says:

    No more dynasties! No more dynasties! No more dynasties!

  23. nicho says:

    Nobody is ready for Hillary. She’ll preside over the total destruction of the Middle Class. Worst choice ever for president — and that includes Reagan, Bush I&II, Clinton I, and Barry the Bomber.

  24. Bill_Perdue says:

    I was surprised by his even considering it. He’s a social democrat but even that will shake things up and hasten the demise of the Whigs Democrats as a party that people see as legitimate.

  25. Bill_Perdue says:

    The differences are not in language, they’re in understanding of the class nature of American society and in approaches to ending the rule of the rich.

  26. Silver_Witch says:

    Saw something similar….I can only hope. Thanks for the link Bill.

  27. caphillprof says:

    It neither clarifies nor helps with the language problem.

  28. Silver_Witch says:

    I would love to be able to vote for Senator Sanders….hoping he will run as an Independent.

  29. HolyMoly says:

    David Allen Grier once joked about naming kids after all the drugs you see on TV commercials these days. It was absolutely hilarious, and I can actually see that happening.

  30. basenjilover says:

    I definitely do NOT want Hillary nor will I vote for her. She’s a Corporatist, through and through. She would throw gays and progressives under bus unflinchingly as her hubby did. BERNIE SANDERS 4 PRESIDENT!

  31. BeccaM says:

    Um, hello? I said the ‘populist’ costume was only that, and how it went straight into the closet as soon as he hit the Oval Office.

  32. AnitaMann says:

    IIRC, he didn’t run to the left of her so much as he appeared to run to the left. Many of us, me included, saw what we wanted to see in Obama. He was a community organizer! That’s good, right? He made a speech against the war. That means he’s anti-war, anti-torture, right? On real policy issues I don’t remember there being a lot of daylight between him and Hil.

  33. AnitaMann says:

    Agreed. She has nothing to gain by speaking up at this point. She has everything to gain – money- by sucking up to Wall St. in semi-private. Even if I thought she was the second coming, like some of my supposedly brilliant progressive friends do, I would still be uncomfortable with coronations. If nobody gives her a serious primary challenge (from the left anyway) there is no WAY she will adopt any progressive policies on her own.

  34. Silver_Witch says:

    I agree with most posters here…running or speaking now does her no good…it only incites the right wing blabbling and why give them any fuel. She is the “locked in” candidate – Republican Light!

    I will be voting for anyone but a Democrat or Republican, or a Republican Light – so I am happy not to listen to the lies that will be told on both sides. Let the election start like they used to, in the olden days….1 year before the election. What is to be gained by starting now…other than severe burn-out.

  35. PeteWa says:

    your attack on the messenger was especially feeble.
    as for the chosen nom de plume, I always took it to be a nod to Tacitus.

  36. Naja pallida says:

    I consider her silence a combination of various things… One, she doesn’t want to draw any focus of attention to herself at this point. She already knows by the time the election rolls around, people are going to be sick of the more than a year of campaign bickering. Two, her policies are mostly lock step with Obama’s policies. It wouldn’t serve much of a point to pipe up and say “Me too!” every time Obama spoke. If her stance on things are different, she doesn’t want to make any more opponents by speaking out against the President. Three, I’m still not convinced she’s going to put her full effort into running. At this point, it really feels like she’s the inevitable candidate and she knows it. Why stress out so early in the game when you can just wait for the pieces to fall into place. In short, she has nothing to gain by being outspoken right now, only things to lose.

  37. Max_1 says:

    She was runner up to Obama’s Cult of Personality contest…
    … Don’t think she didn’t learn anything from that burn.

  38. Indigo says:

    I think we all know that. What we have not yet learned is how to terrorize the party from the inside the way the Tea Party has terrorized the old-fashioned Cloth Coat Republicans.

  39. magster says:

    Budweiser over Keystone Light??

  40. JosephP says:

    Thank you so much for this post, GP. I like John’s cute videos, but you’re the real reason I read this site.

  41. mirror says:

    “[F]irm stool over diarrhea” is kind of an older person’s game, though. Works for me, but I’m not sure the younger voter isn’t more optimistic about what they can expect out of life.

  42. lynchie says:

    Why bring Red Skelton into it. He was also know as Cornie Quinell,
    J. Newton Numbskull and Merton K. Kibble

  43. lynchie says:

    How about Tylenol Smurfet. But someone will name their kid HolyMoly because of your world fame.

  44. magster says:

    Yet both Carter and Reagan were each infinitely superior to their successors. With it looking like the GOP will control both houses of Congress, we will have to yet again vote for firm stool over diarrhea.

  45. BeccaM says:

    Hell, half the time, the Dems can’t even be bothered to mouth the populist ideals, instead promoting job-killing proposals like free trade treaties, ‘grand bargains’ to further shred the social safety net, coming out in favor of for-profit charter schools rather than fixing our public ones, and further weakening labor organizing rights.

    Oh, and of course the constant war-hawk feather preening, to prove they’re more ‘serious’ than the GOP about being strong on national defense…which for some bizarre reason always end with them appointing a Republican to be SecDef, something a GOP president would NEVER do.

  46. jomicur says:

    I’m not questioning your degree, just your ability to read her mind. Just because it’s a normal tactic doesn’t mean she is doing it from “normal” motives. Like her husband, she is a political opportunist of the worst kind. There is no reason to assume she’s concerned with “Democratic unity” except to the extent it might get her elected.

  47. perljammer says:

    She’s the Democratic front runner. Why on earth should she open her mouth and give anyone the opportunity to call her on her bullsh*t??

  48. BrianG says:

    Jimmy Carter was a neoliberal who deregulated trucking and was the first president to preach supply side economics. Bill Clinton, of the DLC, gave us NAFTA, overturned Glass-Steagall, and reformed welfare as we knew while constantly appeasing the bond market. Barack Obama hasn’t prosecuted a single Wall Streeter who imploded the economy. Won’t even attempt a prosecution of Jon Corzine which is a simple case of fraud.

    Face it Dems, the Neoliberals control the Executive branch. Hillary will be no different.

  49. LanceThruster says:

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  50. Blogvader says:

    Absolutely correct.

    I voted Green in the last election (and honestly, struggled a little in the booth doing it) because Democrats run on populist ideals and ditch them at the first opportunity. I’ll be doing the same in 2016 when Hillary makes her run.

  51. BeccaM says:

    The way I see it, Hillary Clinton made her views amply clear during the last time she ran for president, in ’08. And she was a center-right neo-liberal triangulating Democrat who was, yet again, about to depend on the political strategy of “who else is the Dem base going to vote for?”

    Obama managed to secure the nomination for two reasons mainly. One was the unrelenting misogyny of the political coverage of Hillary’s campaign and her personally. And the other is how in his rhetoric and staked out positions, Obama ran to the left of Hilliary and struck a far more populist tone. (Of course, once he was in office, he hung that populist costume in the closet and hauls it out only when campaigning…)

    If the Dems want to win, they need to stop ignoring their constituents and what the people actually want. To stop pandering to the moneyed interests and stop constantly trying to appear ‘serious’ by doing deeply unpopular things, like voting for Social Security cuts promoted as ‘reforms.’ And most of all to stop caving to the radical GOP positions.

  52. 2karmanot says:

    I think that was ‘brat.’

  53. I have a degree in Political Science, what she is doing is a normal tactic, not surprising.

  54. 2karmanot says:

    You should be so lucky to write like Gaius. Go away troll.

  55. MyrddinWilt says:

    I don’t read much into what is not being said. Hilary knows that the population at large is going to get very fed up with the election circus very quickly. So it is important not to wear out her welcome.

    The big challenges I see are climate change and not letting the military use Putin’s adventurism as an excuse for a new arms build up. The aim is to let Russia destroy itself with a military it can’t afford. not the US.

  56. BeccaM says:

    I have a suggestion for you: If you don’t like reading Gaius’ posts, don’t read them. The Internet is huge and this is just one blog on it. You can even start your own blog! How about that?

    Complaining about a pseudonym — a practice used by many bloggers, including Atrios and Digby — is petulant, petty, and rude.

  57. magster says:

    OK Mr. Brett Nolastname.

  58. magster says:

    To use a civil war metaphor, we have to fight the Confederacy and the George McClellan wing of the people nominally on our side simultaneously.

  59. HolyMoly says:

    Come to think of it, maybe his name really IS Gaius Publius. Heck, my grandfather’s name was Lucius. Roman names were all the rage not too long ago. GP’s real name could be Klem Kaddidlehopper for all I care…his opinion will be just the same no matter what he chooses to call himself.

    Keep writing excellent posts, GP!

  60. HolyMoly says:

    Samuel Clemens had the unmitigated gall to write under a pseudonym (Mark Twain). I suppose that everything he wrote is total crap too, eh?

    Mary Shelley was so self-centered, too, considering she originally published “Frankenstein” under the worst pseudonym of all: Anonymous. No matter how great this work of fiction may seem, it’s not — simply for that very reason.

    And in case you’re wondering, when I was born, my mother didn’t name me “HolyMoly.” Nowadays, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone DID name their kid HolyMoly. I’ve seen some real doozies coming through Labor & Delivery over the years.

  61. dcinsider says:

    His real name is Joe Biden, but for obvious reasons he needs to keep his identity secret.

    Don’t tell anyone I told you this.

  62. HolyMoly says:

    I don’t know. I see it more like she’s being silent because she’s got her finger in the air, gauging which way the wind is blowing. She wants to sound like a progressive while — with a nod and a wink — assuring the 1% that she’s one of them, hence her speeches to the Wall Street elite.

    I figure that if you want to see where she lands on the spectrum, watch where she goes first (Wall Street). See if her “progressive” positions are limited merely to social issues which, even though they are important, have less bearing on the economy, military adventurism, the erosion of our constitutional rights, etc. In other words, window dressing, or a political version of “Dancing with the Stars” to keep us otherwise occupied while our livelihoods and rights are stripped away from us.

    Don’t forget, she was a Goldwater Republican. Fruit usually doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  63. jomicur says:

    And how exactly are you privy to her motives?

  64. jomicur says:

    So, having SC justices nominated by a neoliberal/DLC “Democrat” would be preferable to justices named by an ideologically identical Democrat would be preferable why, exactly?

  65. jomicur says:

    So you really don’t understand a concept as simple as writing under a pseudonym? You really are that clueless? So we’re supposed to discount writers from George Orwell to Doctor Seuss to Adam Smith, right? And yet we’re supposed to take your “analysis” seriously, right? Yeah, sure.

  66. Bill_Perdue says:

    You may not know any but yes, there are scores of millions of workers in the US, almost 158 million of us. Not all workers are fortunate enough to be able to find jobs and the jobs they do find are crap jobs thanks to Democrats and Republicans.

    Workers can be unemployed, underemployed, retired etc. They create the wealth that the rich misappropriate.

    I hope that clears things up for you.

  67. lynchie says:

    And your point is what exactly. You post under Brett and that is probably not your name either.

  68. caphillprof says:

    I don’t think the language of the old left is particularly helpful these days. Are there workers really? Aren’t workers mostly outside the US of A? We have an awful lot of unemployed, of long time unemployed, of never employed or premature retired. Your worker lingo seems to exclude them. Wouldn’t you be stronger if you included masses of people other than just workers?

  69. caphillprof says:

    Who are you?

  70. Bill_Perdue says:

    The Supremes are right wing politicians nominated and confirmed by other right wing politicians. The occasional good they do, or are forced to do by world public opinion or massive movements for change is minor compared to the harm they do.

  71. Bill_Perdue says:

    Good post, GP.

    The key thing is that the attitudes of potential voters are undergoing a sea change. They’re increasingly looking to other options instead of participating in elections as Democrat/Republicans as a means of achieving the kinds of fundamental changes called for by ongoing political, economic and military crises. Those options include mass strikes and mass actions.

    The vote count in the last election – 40% of eligible voters simply boycotted the elections of 2012 – clearly shows that the Democrats and Republicans both got fewer voters than those who simply stayed at home in disgust. “A report estimating the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Tuesday’s election shows the rate was lower than in the past two presidential contests, though it surpassed the rate from 2000. Thursday’s report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004.

    The huge rise in interest in third parties, shown in the October 2014 Gallup poll shown below and in the election of a socialist to the Seattle City Council (sweet) and the sweep of local races by anti-Democrat union candidates in Ohio (sweeter) will help escalate the breakup of the Democrats and Republicans and force them to turn sharply left or right, which is where most of them will inevitable end up.

    The political crisis will begin to draw larger and larger numbers of voters to the left, lead to splits and divisions in the major parties and will push Democrat and Republican politicians and many of their supporters increasingly right – hard right. The growth of massive socialist and workers parties is the only way out for workers and the prospects look good for our being able to use elections to organize and educate around transitional demands like a $15.00 minimum wage.

    Secondly, the attack on the standard of living of working people and the insoluble economic crises that entails are going to get much worse. Political attacks on the standard of living of retired workers, which is the real subject, will continue whether or not Democrats or Republicans control Congress or the White House.

    The trillions that working people paid into Social Security and Medicare (Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA), and continue to pay, are a vast fund that the rich, who own those two parties, want to tap to reduce their own minimal taxes even further and to finance their incessant wars of aggression to control the world’s energy and raw material resources.

    These attacks on our standard of living by Reagan, the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama, combined with their union busting efforts which began with Carter, and the massive export of jobs promoted by all of those regimes has succeeded in pauperizing the majority of workers and forcing 45 million into poverty, artificially maintaining an unemployment and underemployment rate of 16.5% (2) with over twenty million workers out of work, working marginally or detached from the employment market.Homelessness affects 1,750,000 people, of whom 36% are families with children and a further 7% are ‘unaccompanied minors’. (3)

    The wars of aggression by Democrats and Republicans will continue to take their toll and are becoming increasingly dangerous at they push for confrontations with Russia and China. They even feature a bizarre new strain of right wing Democrats, McCain Democrats.




  72. Kalil says:

    Start sounding less neoliberal by not giving fellatory speeches to the wall street elite.
    If her nascent campaign hasn’t figured that out, then she’s already failed the Penn Test.

  73. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Thank you for pretending to speak for the public.

  74. Indigo says:

    That sounds about right. I also assume she’s got a committee working on re-scripting her comments. She needs to at least sound less neo-liberal and probably doesn’t quite get how to do that yet.

  75. I have already donated to I’m Ready for Hillary. She is being silent because she does not want any of her statements to be seen to contradict the current admin in any way. She wants Democrats to stay united and does not want to be seen as divisive by being on purpose that way or by accident.

  76. samNH says:

    The next president needs to be a democratic president for THIS reason: THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, whether it is Hilary or someone else.

  77. Indigo says:

    Mythology has it that GP is a VIP in something or other and, like Hillary, has to appease a cabal about which we know nuzzink!

  78. Drew2u says:

    And your articles are posted… where? Please, share.

  79. Brett says:

    Can we stop getting inane posts by this fake name author? It takes a lot of self-centered narcissism to think one is entitled to publish under such a name (Publius? Guess you think you’re the next James Madison). Don’t pretend to speak for the public, unless you can put a real name on your work.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS