Can Hillary Clinton Be Trusted? I Think So. Her Actions Prove So.

I know there’s been a lot of talk lately about the Presidential Candidates and who said what about who. I know there are accusations flying all over the place, and I know there’s plenty of talk about who can actually be trusted to solve the many problems facing our nation today. But do you think that we can get beyond the accusations and the food fights just for a moment, so we can talk about this issue of trust?

All our Democratic Candidates are talking about trust. But as other candidates get caught in all this neagtive mudslinging, Hillary Clinton is talking about what actually matters and showing us why she can be trusted. Take a look at Hillary’s new ad appearing in Iowa. While others may denigrate Hillary’s character, she shows us why she can be trusted to fight for working families.

Click Here to see the Ad.

29 Comments

  1. Sen. Clinton says she will end the [Iraq] war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq,

    She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans, but when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney.

    She says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt.

    She has said publicly that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes, and she has said privately to people, as has been reported in the press, that in fact she would consider raising that cap.

    Senator Clinton said in Washington that she would vote for the Peru Trade Deal, and she said in Iowa, talking to union members, that she wanted a moratorium on trade deals.

    Sure Andrew, we can trust Hillary. We can trust that while throwing mud herself, she will cry that the other candidates are throwing mud and personally attacking her. If she cannot handle a little criticism while she is leading in the polls, how can we trust her to be able to handle the job of our party nominee or President?

    Yes Andrew, We can trust Hillary to say one thing and do another. Using here campaign ad as a demonstration of her trustworthyness is silly, and you know it. Have another sip of your Kool-Aid Hi-C.

  2. Andrew, you post to a very pro-Hillary blogger for your proof of her not being involved in “mud slinging”. Hillary has, she is not above it and she’s been very much involved in it.

    Edwards has questioned her on her votes,etc. Obama has brought up some very troubling rumors that have been around for a while and I don’t respect that, such as saying that a pact made between a husband and a wife twenty years ago is not enough reason for someone to be President, just wrong.

    Now, she posted two videos, one about Thanksgiving and one of Hillary answering a question. How does one invalidate the other? “There is no positive narrative”? Yes there is!

    There is tons of positive with Edwards, talk about mud slinging. I liked this comment.

    ——————————————————
    TM- the big difference for the two Edwards videos is the positive one is paid for on TV, the Hillary is parsing one is free on the internet

    they are not an early and late campaign they are aimed at two different groups.

    the TV ads are aimed directly at viewers as being paid for by the campaign and voters will affiliate them that way. the Youtubes are designed to generate free media in which whatever the Yappers say about Hillary do not stick to the campaign as much. The psycology of voters works that way.

    Also, whatever you want to say Edwards has managed to get more coverage in the last month than the month before.
    Hillary Murdoch | 11.20.2007 – 1:53 pm

    —————————————————————-

    Kind of says it all for me. I’m not looking to argue, I’m trying to present another point of view.

  3. Andrew,
    you damn Hippy! Obamaa turned out to be a flash in thee pan! Hillary is not much more than aa sound bite in a dress. get with the program son. If we dont nominate John Edwards as our Demcraatic Presidentiall candidate, we may end up Rudy “Im aalll about 9-11” Guliani as our next President. Dont you realize thaat no matteer what, Hillary Clinton will never bee able to win tthe whitehouse?
    Get with the program and wash the pachuli off your back son!
    Ya damn Hippy!

  4. Chris-

    Calm down, please. I’m not drinking kool-aid. I’m just trying to provide some balance to your post bashing Hillary over one comment she made about Obama touting his own experience.

    When has Hillary started any anti-Obama or anti-Edwards web sites? When has she run negative TV ads? Or distorted her opponents’ records? Don’t even try to compare one statement in a campaign speech to what I’ve seen the other campaigns do.

    And please, don’t start distorting Hillary’s record. She worked with fellow Democrats to take the worst elements out of Kyl-Lieberman, and she’s co-sponsoring Jim Webb’s bill forbidding any military strike on Iran. She’s offered her own legislation calling on the Pentagon to draw up an exit strategy out of Iraq. Those actions are NOT “Bush-lite”.

    Hillary has a consistent pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-civil rights record. She has a 95% lifetime rating from ADA. She has consistently voted against bad trade deals that have no labor and environmental standards, and she only voted for Peru because that deal had good regulatory standards. Btw, Obama also voted for Peru. Hillary NEVER said that she would oppose Peru, but rather that she would impose a “time out” on future trade deals as President in order to make sure that ALL OUR TRADE PACTS have the type of regulatory protections that were in the Peru deal. That sounds perfectly consistent to me.

    But if you do want to talk to me about inconsistent records, I have some questions for you. Why did Edwards oppose the Peru trade deal when it had the very labor and environmental standards that he himself said were necessary for any good trade deal? And what has he said about his past Senate votes approving China’s entry into the WTO, and giving China “most favored nation” status before that?

    And why did Edwards oppose better fuel-efficiency standards for cars while he was in the Senate, even though he’s now criticizing other candidates’ climate action plans for not being “tough enough”? Isn’t that “inconsistent”?

  5. Sorry Andrew, I meant Hi-C not Kool-Aid.

    You kee talking about the Jim Webb bill which has a better chance of passing than Bush voluntarily pulling our troops out of Iraq, (except to attack Iran). With out that bill, Bush will use the designation of the Iranian National Guard as a Terrorist Group as justification for bombing Iranian military targets. That would be an act of war and Iran would respond. Hillary was wrong on her Iran vote and no amount of spin will change that.

    As far as the Peru trade deal is concerned, you brought up trust. She said one thing to labor in Iowa and another in Washington. That was my point.

    I hope that at some point you will see the light, just like you did with Obama. 🙂

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  6. Chris-

    Yes, I have seen the light. That’s why I trust Hillary. Her comments on trade are NOT contradictory. She voted for Peru (along with Obama and most other Democrats) because it had good labor and environmental standards. She told Iowa voters that she’d impose a “time out” on future trade deals to ensure that we have more deals like Peru and no more deals with inadequate regulatory standards. That’s not inconsistent, just thoughtful.

    And regarding Iran, Hillary worked with fellow Democrats to take the worst language out of Kyl-Lieberman. Do I like K-L? Personally, no. But could it have been worse if the GOP had its way? Hell, yeah!

    And why all the pessimism on Jim Webb’s bill on Iran? Perhaps if more Senators join Hillary in supporting the bill, we can see it passed. After all, John Edwards thinks the Iraq problem can easily be solved by sending the same bill over and over again to Bush, not considering how it’s supposed to survive a Senate filibuster.

    And before I go back to getting myself some apple pie, let me talk Social Security. Obama’s using right wing memes about “CRISIS!!” and proposing a tax on middle class families to solve the supposed “CRISIS!!” (and yes, we all know that $97K a year is middle class here in OC) Hillary, OTOH, is proposing we first fix Bush’s fiscal mess and allow a bipartisan commission (similar to the one put in place in 1983) to propose solutions before we fix whatever long-term issues face Social Security. Now what sounds more responsible to you?

    Nice to chat with you, Chris, and I hope you’re having a nice Thanksgiving. Don’t overdo the kool-aid, and try not to bring any to DL next Thursday. 😉

  7. Andrew,

    I have not forgotten the rampant corruption of the Bill Clinton administrations. Hillary is a corporatist. She is not unlike Miguel Pulido, who has endorsed her. Power and money are her main motivations. I do not trust her.

    I am voting for Bill Richardson. The only other Democratic candidates worth a damn are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich.

  8. Art-

    What corruption? Are you talking about all the “Whitewater” filled with nothing and a bunch of hypocrite GOPers sniffing up Bill Clinton’s zipper? Those faux scandals were MANUFACTURED by Richard Mellon Scaife to try to derail the progress that the Clinton Administration was making in bringing about peace and prosperity for this nation. And despite these faux scandals, Bill Clinton became the first Democratic President since FDR to win a second term as he helped Congressional Dems win back quite a few seats that were lost in 1994.

    If anything, this is MORE reason why Hillary will make a great nominee and a terrific President. She’s been tried under fire along with her husband and the rest of the Clinton Administration, and she only came out of it stronger. Pundits scoffed at Hillary’s chances of winning a Senate seat in 2000, but she ultimately proved those pundits WRONG. And ever since she was first elected to the Senate, Hillary has been a strong advocate for working families.

    Hmmm, maybe this is why the vast right-wing conspiracy is so afraid of Hillary… ‘Cuz she knows how to beat them at their game. 🙂

  9. Andrew,

    https://theliberaloc.com/2007/11/22/mud-bath/

    Is this the diary you are referring to? You call this “bashing”? He just asked if she was slinging mud, how is that bashing? You’re kidding right? Was that sarcasm?

    Edwards has not run one negative ad, I’ve seen all his ads, not one of them is NEGATIVE. Now if you are referring to the youtubes, not an ad and you know what, it’s an election. He’s never called ANY of the criticism he faces as “mud slinging” or “right wing talking points”, he defends his choices and he moves on rather than calling foul when someone calls him on something. That’s the issue I have.

    I want to address some of your questions to Chris. Media Matters covers it brilliantly – http://mediamatters.org/items/200711090015.

    Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That’s right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

    The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers. This would be a major human tragedy.

    See these links here and here for more info.
    ——————————————————————–

    It’s not a good deal and just because Hillary and Obama say they are going to vote for it doesn’t make it right.

    Now, Social Security. Now Republicans call it a “Crisis” because they want to privatize by scaring the crap out of Americans. Common practice and of course they caused the so called crisis but taking money from the fund to balance their budgets and cut taxes. They should be kept separate even though they are technically in the budget. Raising the cap has more to do with having people who make over $200,000 pay into the system. Edwards would have money earned between the 97,000 cap and $200,000 exempt in order not to hurt “middle class” families. That’s a lot of money, it’s not middle class by the way, but Edwards makes the point that this would hurt those who work in high cost areas, such as San Francisco or Orange County.

    Obama has not mentioned this exemption and it solves your issue with raising taxes on “the middle class”.

    ———————————————
    # Middle class; (ca. 30%) “…members have significant skills and perform varied tasks at work, under loose supervision. They earn enough to afford a comfortable, mainstream lifestyle. Most wear white collars, but some wear blue.”[6] In 2005, incomes for this group would have ranged from $50,000 to $90,000 for households and $27,500 to $52,500 for individuals.[37][38]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Common_salaries_and_job_prospects
    ————————————————–

    Yep, Edwards Senate record suffered from him being very middle of the road as a Senator of a Red State. He was wrong and I think he’s proven for me that he’s seen the light, all his policies show this.

    Hillary’s “inconsistencies” are all from things she’s done in the past YEAR and it’s a matter of opinion. Kyl-Lieberman can be seen as a bill without teeth, but it still bothers me and I still fee it was wrong to vote for it. Biden and Dodd did not vote for it and I respect them for that. And I’m sorry, the GOP still got their way and it just shouldn’t have been pushed through at all. It sends the wrong message to our allies and to China and Russia.

    I hope you had a good Thanksgiving

  10. The Peru trade deal was unique in being the first to include enforcible labor standards. But be serious, Peru’s is a puny economy, a nation with fewer people than Iraq and no oil. I’m not even a little impressed with Hillary Clinton on this vote. I’d be impressed if her “conversion” to what we call in the 21st century “rights” and “standards” would bring her to call for renegotiating NAFTA. And for teeth in our negotiations with other big players. Because, let’s not pretend that Hillary Clinton would not have voted for NAFTA and China MFN–without any labor rights or environmental standards. Let’s not forget that the decoupling of such standards from trade deals was a hallmark of Bill Clinton’s policy. I’ve said it before, this independent’s reliably democratic vote will almost certainly not be cast for another DLC Clintonite. I’ve long ago passed and flushed that kool-aid. -j

  11. Elli-

    Thanks for the reasoned response. If you’re interested in dialogue, then so am I. 🙂

    Let’s start on Peru. Here’s what the Carnegie Endowment (NOT a right-wing shill group) says needed to be done to make the Peru deal work:
    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17682&prog=zgp&proj=zted

    And here’s the final text of the agreement that includes provisions on workers’ rights and environmental protection:

    http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/Section_Index.htm

    Now here’s where Hillary stands on the Latin American trade agreements, and on trade in general:

    http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2007/11/hillary-clinton.html

    http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

    Notice how CATO only gives her a 17% rating on “free trade”… I think she’s on our side on trade. She voted AGAINST all the other trade deals this year because they were unfair, and she voted for Peru because it has good labor and environmental regulatory standards.

    Oh, and one last thing. Chris asked in the earlier post whether Hillary was “mudslinging” over ONE COMMENT she made on Obama’s lack of experience. I wouldn’t call that “mudslinging”, but whatever. All I have to say is that Hillary has NEVER released a negative TV, radio, OR online ad attacking fellow Democrats. She has NOT distorted other candidates’ records or called them names. She’s staying focused on the issues, and I think she’s making a good case that she’s ready to lead as our next President.

    Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, and please feel free to keep hanging out here. 🙂

  12. Andrew,

    Free-trade agreements developed by the Bush administration do not equal fair-trade. While there are some good provisions in the agreement, there are others that make the agreement unacceptable.

    Here is part of a story in the LATimes about the agreement.

    A number of Democrats contended the protections didn’t go far enough and expressed skepticism about whether the Bush administration would stand behind them.

    Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) asked, “Who will enforce these labor standards? Who will enforce these environmental standards? The Bush administration? I don’t think so.”

    Hare said he thought the vote was a mistake that could hurt the party with its more liberal supporters. “I hope there’s not a blowback from our base,” he said.

    Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood) said that, although there were improvements in the agreement compared with previous ones, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, “the agreement is still not good enough.”

    “I feel like I’m at a used-car lot, and the dealer is trying to sell the American people a beat-up old NAFTA lemon with a new paint job,” she said.

    Critics of the trade deal seized on reports out of Peru that the government ordered striking miners to return to work or be fired.

    “What I can’t understand is why does the Democratic leadership want to give George Bush a victory?” Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said this week in opposing the measure. Click Here for Hoffa’s comments on the trade deal.

    The AFL-CIO told lawmakers that it would neither “support the agreement nor oppose it,” a spokesman said.

    It is however interesting that the DLC, which Hillary is a member of their Leadership Team, claimed the following in a November 1, 2007 article on their website:

    On the merits, there is almost no opposition to the agreement; notably, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers have had positive things to say about its substantive details. Such opposition as exists is almost entirely symbolic, with some trade hardliners urging a “no” vote simply to signal generalized economic anxiety, or unhappiness with trade policy matters that have nothing to do with Peru.

    But of course, progressives should trust Hillary, because afterall she is a key leader in the “progressive” DLC.

    The Peru Trade Deal is fashioned by the Bush administration. There is nothing fair about this trade agreement. It is based upon the flawed free-trade policies of the Bush administration. There is no way to put enough lipstick on this pig to make it look pretty.

    I do love how the discussion has shifted from Hillary’s conflicting statements on the matter to the merit or lack of merit of the trade agreement. Good spin Andrew. :) 

  13. Chris-

    Please calm down. I’m not spinning. I’m only answering the questions that YOU and Elli brought up about Peru.

    And please, please stop with the “DLC Bogeyman”. If Hillary were such a good DLCer, she would have gone to their convention this year. But no, she did NOT. She was at YearlyKos instead. And if you really want to talk DLC, I can show you how Obama AND Edwards both have ties to it as well. But I’d rather not, because I really don’t like having to go negative.

    And btw, you left out something on Peru. Speaker Pelosi and 108 other House Dems supported Peru because they FORCED Bush to concede on labor and environmental standards.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/117000/19

    But hey, since the full story doesn’t make Hillary look evil, we can’t go there?

  14. Andrew,

    I am completely calm.

    You ask that I not bring up the DLC Bogeyman. Well Andrew, you are too young to understand the full impact that the DLC has had on the true values of the Democratic Party. Hillary is still part of the DLC leadership and just because she missed the convention doesn’t mean she isn’t still part of their grand plan to get another Republican-light Democrat elected President.

    While many democrats have been affiliated with the DLC over the years, none of the current contenders for the nomination have stronger ties than Hillary to the DLC.

    Andrew, as far as Pelosi voting for the Peru trade deal being an example of what is so right about it. The true labor supporive Democrats in the House voted against it. Pelosi has decided to capitulate to Bush at virtually every turn, this vote is nothing new for her. Pelosi and the rest of the DLCers voted with the Bush Republicans in favor of the Peru trade deal.

    Here is where the spin on Peru began Andrew, they are your words not mine.

    “But if you do want to talk to me about inconsistent records, I have some questions for you. Why did Edwards oppose the Peru trade deal when it had the very labor and environmental standards that he himself said were necessary for any good trade deal? “

    That “spin” or deflection got us talking about the details of the trade deal rather than the conflicting statements Clinton had made.

    Anyway Andrew, have another sip of your Hi-C.

  15. Chris-

    Again, you were the one to first bring up trade and Hillary’s supposed inconsistencies on the issue. I’m only clarifying that, and I’m sorry that you see my clarification as “spin”.

    And please, stop with the DLC nonsense. Obama has earned praise from the DLC. Edwards had bona fide DLCers run his 2004 campaign. If you want to yell about the DLC, I can use my Mobile Google to find how EVERYONE running for President is somehow tied to the DLC.

    So what can I do to get a reasoned response from you? I point out Hillary’s trade record, and you cry DLC. I point out Hillary’s rather consistent record on just about everything we care about, and you cry doubletalk. I don’t get it.

    Just because I now support Hillary doesn’t make me any less progressive than you, or any less of a Democrat than you. Please remember that. I expect this kind of heated rhetoric from a few angry anti-Hillary trolls on Daily Kos, but not from respected bloggers who should know better.

  16. Andrew, back to your post…

    You said; “she (Hillary) shows us why she can be trusted to fight for working families.”

    Hmmm? Would that be because of her distinguished service on the WalMart Board of Directors? Her decision to support the anti-labor policies of WalMart during her time on that board have helped make WalMart the largest retailer in the world and one of the least labor friendly employers in our country.

    From an LATimes article in May of this year…

    Former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. board members and executives recall Clinton as a politically nimble insider who cautiously tried to nudge the company toward hiring more female executives and environmentally friendly practices, to limited effect, while remaining silent as Wal-Mart pursued anti-union strategies.

    She voted on company policies and joined several advisory committees during a period that was a turning point for the firm as it transformed rapidly from a regional chain of cut-rate stores to a worldwide retail powerhouse.

    Wal-Mart critics say her presence brought little lasting change to the firm. And former executives say she was not a voice for bold reform.

    “She was not a dissenter,” said Donald G. Soderquist, Wal-Mart’s former chief operating officer and the board’s vice chairman during Clinton’s tenure. “She was a part of those decisions.”

    I wonder why she doesn’t tout her business experience on the WalMart Board? In fact, not only does she not tout it, she tries to hide from it.

    Yes, Hillary does have a strong labor record. I’m just not so sure how supportive it is.

    An no Andrew, I’m not an anti-Hillary troll. I simply refuse to drink the Hi-C. I am not bashing her. I’m bringing up a few inconvenient truths which she doesn’t want anyone to remember.

  17. Chris-

    Now you’re getting ridiculous. You don’t want to talk about John Edwards’ less than perfect Senate voting record, as that’s “old news”, but you want to go back 20 years to bash Hillary over Wal-Mart? That was back when Sam Walton was alive, and Wal-Mart was a different company then. They actually had stuff “made in America”.

    But anyways, when I talked about Hillary’s record of fighting for working families, I meant her stellar Senate record opposing Bush’s anti-middle class economic policies…

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/17/121155/77

    And Hillary’s work in creating SCHIP, and Hillary speaking out for better education opportunities for all, and Hillary working to expand health care for kids as Arkansas First Lady, and Hillary fighting for kids while working for Children’s Defense Fund. While other candidates talk about “change”, Hillary has actually made that happen.

    And no matter how you want to deride what I said, those are FACTS. And no, I did not call you a troll. I only said that your recent behavior on this thread is reminding me of the anti-Hillary trolls that I constantly have to deal with on DKos. I know you’re better than that, and that’s why this has surprised me.

  18. Hillary’s “work as Arkansas First Lady happened while she was serving on the Board of Directors of WalMart. Their anti-labor policies did not happen only after Sam Walton’s death. They were there from the beginning. Those policies were in place while she served on that Board.

    For the record, Hillary served on the WalMart Board of Directors from 1986 to 1992.

    If you wish to make her work as hostess in chief for Bill while he was in Arkansas or while he was in Washington, D.C. be my guest, but I am un-convinced as to how that is a justification for me to support her selection as our party’s presidential nominee. That is about as relevent as Obama living in Indonesia as a child making him more or less qualified.

    And I suppose when your recount Hillary’s stellar performance against Bush’s anti-middle class policies, you are leaving out her support for his first “free-trade” deals in 2003 with Singapore and Chile.

    From The Labor Research Association, July 29, 2003

    Labor leaders have stressed that these two most recent deals will set a dangerous precedent regarding workers’ rights and environmental standards, as they are expected to serve as a template for upcoming pacts with five Central American countries, with 33 nations of the Western Hemisphere and with Australia and Morocco, all of which could be finalized in 2004.

    “The Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements are about more lost jobs,” said Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, a fair-trade proponent and a reliable voice for labor in Congress, following the pair of votes in the House.

    “American workers understand that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in the 10 years since NAFTA was signed. Then China was given Permanent Normal Trade Relations,” said Brown, whose Ohio district includes the manufacturing centers of Akron and Lorain.

    At issue is language regarding labor standards that appears to be nothing more than a fig leaf of political cover. Union leaders and pro-labor Democrats predict these provisions will encourage U.S. plants abroad to hire lower-paid workers subject to few, if any labor protections.

    The Chile and Singapore accords direct the two nations to enforce their own labor laws, which at present incorporate the five core standards of the International Labor Organization – banning child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination and protecting the right to associate and bargain collectively – but which could be weakened at any time, particularly if doing so will lure U.S. companies.

    Critically, labor leaders expect this “enforce-your-own-laws” terminology to be inserted in pending CAFTA and FTAA deals, the first covering much of Central America, where labor abuse is rampant, and the second incorporating all of the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the Bush administration hopes these two bilateral deals will build momentum for opening markets in goods and services globally.

    Yeah, I think those predictions of disaster were pretty on target.

    Hillary has supported the disasterous policies of the Bush administration in the area of trade. You are somewhat right when you say that Hillary has made change happen. I’m just not sure all of the changes she has brought have been that good for working families.

    And those Andrew, are facts as well.

  19. Chris-

    Whatever type of kool aid you’re trying to serve me, I think it’s tasting way too bitter. And it’s not even all that factual.

    CAFTA? Hillary voted NO on CAFTA. Did you see my comment at #12? I included a link to her full voting record on trade. CATO, the libertarian think tank, gave Hillary a 17% rating on “free trade”… I don’t think Bush really appreciates only 17% support for his trade agenda.

    And are you really saying that Hillary was only “Hostess in Chief” while she was in the White House? I guess you forgot her busy travel schedule, and that little speech she gave in Beijing about women’s rights being human rights…

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/22/225752/95

    But please, go ahead and rehash ancient history from 25 years ago. And in the mean time, don’t give an explanation as to why Hillary has ALWAYS supported workers’ rights in the Senate while Edwards wasn’t quite as consistent.

    I guess it’s easier to mischaracterize my candidate’s record than to give everyone the straight dope on your candidate.

  20. Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Andrew, this is Edwards’ rating for the Senate.

    ________________________________________
    As U.S. senator, Edwards has earned a 96 percent AFL-CIO lifetime working families voting record. In 2003, he stood with working families 100 percent of the time.”
    http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=John%20Edwards
    _________________________________________

    Clinton’s lifetime score of 93% with the AFL-CIO, yes, hers is lower. Who is making things up Andrew? Edwards is and has been for working families. Hillary had no right to question his sincerity by saying “If John Edwards really cared about working families”. Yes, that’s not negative.

  21. Elli-

    Well, at least you’re giving me some real numbers. However, the AFL-CIO ratings only tell part of the story.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/17/121155/77

    ADA, the nation’s leading progressive advocacy group, gave Edwards a lifetime score of 77.5. While in the Senate, he voted against collective bargaining rights for police and fire, against collective bargaining rights for Dept. of Homeland Security employees, and for the Andean Free Trade Pact of 2002.

    Hillary, OTOH, has a 95.8 lifetime rating from ADA. Her voting record has been more consistently pro-labor, pro-environment, and pro-civil rights. She actually voted against the Andean trade pact, and for collective bargaining for DHS workers and police and fire.

    But still, thanks for mentioning their Senate records. At least we can try talking about relevant recent history for a change.

  22. Andrew, I’m familiar with the ADA and it’s votes, I was focusing on the phrase “working families”, so that is why I went to AFL-CIO. And I’ve also pointed out that Edwards had to vote with his state in mind, a Southern, red state as opposed to Clinton’s very Blue Northern state.

  23. Elli-

    I understand that North Carolina is a “red state”. However, I don’t understand how Edwards can criticize other candidates on “inconsistency” when he himself has changed positions quite a bit between then and now. So would Edwards keep the same positions he has now in a general election against a Republican? And would he govern the way he voted in the Senate, or the way he talks now? That’s the concern I have.

    And regarding Hillary’s position as Senator from New York, that was something she had to fight for in 2000. Even as “blue” as New York was then, her election wasn’t a sure thing. Hillary went out, talked with many thousands of voters face-to-face, and got a good grasp of the issues facing New York. And ever since her surprise landslide victory in 2000, Hillary has been consistent in her advocacy for middle class values, workers’ rights, environmental protection, and civil rights.

    Hillary has been most consistent in being on our side, and that’s what I appreciate.

  24. His current policy plans support his current positions and I believe that. He’s been talking about poverty for years and I believe he was being overly cautious as a junior Senator. He listened to too many advisers and was too calculating. This is where he’s changed, he’s no longer listening to those people but to what he thinks is right. You can’t measure that, I can’t quantify it.

    And Hillary’s big missteps for me have been just in the past couple of months! It’s not about her overall senate record. And right now, it also comes down to just choosing the candidate I agree with the most. When the GE comes, Hillary has my support.

    I know all about his past votes, from a war that I didn’t support to Yucca Mountain. I don’t deny those, it’s not something I have issue with and I can see how people do have issue.

    I’m not thinking I’m going to change your mind here, it is not my intent or goal, but I do feel that he’s moved his positions for the right reasons and that he has admitted that he turned his head, he saw what was wrong with how things are and did nothing, he takes responsibility for the votes, every single one and I actually respect that.

  25. Elli-

    I respect that, and I respect your decision. And if Edwards happens to win the primaries, he can expect my GE support. I know my rhetoric can get a little overheated when I get angry, but I’m sure he’d make a good President.

    For me, it’s an issue of known v. unknown. There are too many questions I have about Obama and Edwards, and what they’d actually do if they were to win. With Hillary, OTOH, the questions have been answered. She’s been tried under fire for the last 35 years, and she only comes out stronger. No matter what the vast right-wing conspiracy throws at her, they can’t take her down. That’s the kind of strength and experience I want in our nominee.

    Chris-

    If you’re still following this thread, I just wanted to apologize for getting a little too angry yesterday. I didn’t intend to hurt you, but I might have been a little too fierce in staking my ground. Sorry. I hope you’re feeling better today. And if it, have a ))))HUG(((( and a smiley 🙂 ….
    My gift from me to you. 🙂

  26. Trust Hillary Clinton? Why would anyone think of doing that? Hillary is all about the aggregation of personal power for Hillary, and nothing else. She can’t be trusted; she has no ethics, and she certainly is not honest or trustworthy. I can understand, if you are a Demorat, why you might want to see one of your own elected, but certainly don’t ever go so far as to “trust” her. She deserves no such respect; she is a vulture who warrants 24/7 inspection and she should be caged and monitored at all times to minimize any damage she may cause. She will be a DISASTER for this country.

    From the 50% that HATE HER GUTS and will do almost anything to make sure she does not get elected

    Robert S. Meybohm, CPA

Comments are closed.