Gov. Brewer signs controversial immigration bill

I've never said that I don't think Clinton, like Obama, is a centrist Democrat because, in fact, she is a centrist Democrat.

Moreover, in my last post I pointed out that many Obama economic advisors would likely have been players in any Clinton administration.

You make a lot of assertions about what other posters think, and you just made a boatload of assertions about what I've written on this blog, while clearly demonstrating that you didn't even bother to fully read my last post before responding to it.

My reference in that post (which you might want to actually read before commenting further on my political views) to the "Democratic ruling class," which I fault for being too timid and conservative in response to the economic crisis, obviously includes supporters of Hillary and former members of Bill Clinton's administration -- because former Clinton administration officials and advisors are an important part of that ruling class.

Believe me, I haven't found any heroes to worship, cultlike or otherwise, among the very human and, in many, many instances, way too conservative for my taste Democratic establishment. But, that doesn't mean there aren't many Democratic office holders, some of whom I may often heartily disagree with, who deserve respect for working long and hard on  issues that are important to them and to the welfare of the country. In Hillary Clinton's case it has been issues pertaining to women and children, the stresses on working class families, and health care. Those issues have always been priorities for me and they were a priority in deciding my primary vote.

Obama, on the other hand, had a shorter public record before running for President. But, from his books and the themes of his campaign it seemed obvious that bridging the differences between people and groups, internationally as well as nationally, and healing our polarized and increasingly disfunctional politics was, and is, for him an important, sincerely held political goal. I respect that about him personally, but, given the radical conservatism practiced by the modern Republican party, I didn't think the reconciliation of differences between left and right he hoped for was possible, or, most important, that bi-partisanship would lead to policies that could effectively address the nation's needs. So for me one of the most important themes of his campaign didn't provide a reason to vote for him, although, of course, for many others it did.  

Both Clinton and Obama are to the right of me, in some cases far to the right, on many issues; labor policy, economic priorities, civil liberties, the use of our military power, etc., etc. But, slim as they may be, there are differences between them. Like everyone else faced with making a choice between the candidates, I considered those differences when I made my choice. I made a judgement about the difference between their records on, and my perception of their understanding of and commitment to, issues that were priorities to me -- especially as they pertained to women, children, the economic stresses faced by working families, and health care. Making a choice and casting a vote does not in anyway make one a cult member. It just makes you a responsible citizen. That I perceived differences in how these two candidates approached my most important issues in no way means that I thought Clinton was a lefty. Nor did I ever think Obama was one.

Unlike many Obama supporters I did not see huge or in the long run significant differences between Clinton and Obama in terms of military and foreign policy.

Unlike some, BTD for instance, I didn't count the difference in how Obama and Clinton would likely be treated by the media as a substantial reason to support Obama over Clinton either. It was and is my belief, right or wrong we will never know, that, if elected, the more negative treatment Clinton likely would receive wouldn't, in the long run, have serious impact on her success as President.

For many Obama supporters the positive message to the world, about our nation's true commitment to equality, opportunity and democracy, his election would send -- and the opportunity to repair our nation's badly damaged image it provided -- was a very compelling reason to vote for him. I agreed with that expectation. But, in the primary, my priorities were domestic policy, and I judged Obama as the relatively weaker candidate in terms of record on and policy prescriptions for issues like health care, reproductive rights, the econmic plight of working class women, older women, working families, small business, etc. But, perceiving one candidate as relatively to the left of another on some issues is in no way the same thing as thinking that candidate is a lefty.

As for Obama, in my view many of the people in the party's establishment who first encouraged him to run against Clinton were even further right of center than either Bill or Hillary Clinton in terms of economic and social policy. Obama's own statements and record (limited as it was) and the financial supporters and economic advisors (especially those from the University of Chicago) he depended on during the campaign, indicated, to me, that he too was likely to be even more conservative in terms of economic policy than Clinton (who no one but deranged Republicans thinks is anything other than a centrist). But I'm only talking relative differences here.

Those small differences decided my primary vote. But its silly to think that vote has any bearing on my opinion of how the administration is addressing the economy.

My views on what is needed to address our current problems and the long standing weaknesses in the economy that contributed to them have been developed by decades of broad experience in and observation of how business is conducted in America, across many industries and in many roles; as an employee, an employer, a marketer, a low income file clerk, a highly paid department head, an entrepreneur, a cancer survivor dependent on ever more expensive individual insurance, a once upon a time single mother, a working class girl, from a labor family, who aimed for a well paid professional career at a time when the path to such a career was difficult for any woman and even the expectation of such a thing was discouraged in girls from my background, etc, etc,. Those views would be the same whether it was Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gore, or anyone else who was now in the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton never had the support that Obama has had from the press and 60 votes in the Senate. You can yammer about DADT and what bad policy it is NOW but it was pretty groundbreaking 17 years ago.

he is more liberal than Clinton