Biden All In For TPP, Will Lobby Congress For Passage

In case you were wondering:

So Labor, how do you like Biden now?

< Hillary Mocks Trump on SNL | Moving Week Two and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He's gonna run - he's not gonna run... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    might as well pick petals off a daisy and see where you end up; I figure that's at least as accurate as anything out there in the media...

    Having Biden in the race will be like having a moderate Republican along for the ride; I can't think of a single thing he brings to the Democratic table, other than pulling Clinton back to the right, and that's not a good thing.

    Ugh, just go away already, Joe.

    The NRA gives Biden (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    an "F."  

    As should anyone caring about other (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    constitutional rights.  Biden was the moving force, 25 years ago, behind things like expanding and enhancing mandatory minimum sentences, gutting habeas corpus, limiting prisoners' rights to litigate, creating new, vaguely defined crimes, and a host of other things we discuss in very negative terms here.

    38 current Senators get an F (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    Sanders bucks the trend and gets a D

    Sanders should get a much (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    higher grade.

    That's the consensus feeling (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    ever since he voted against the Brady Bill. And he took a conservative stance after Newtown by eluding that gun control should be a state's rights issue. Should be interesting to see how he handles it when pressed on the matter.

    It's not just gun control (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 10:45:06 AM EST
    He also cited states' rights for years when it came to gay marriage, even though he voted against DOMA.

    Hillary Clinton on Hillary Clinton's view (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    on Gay Marriage

    Fresh Air Interview June 12, 2014

    CLINTON: Well, I was fully on board with ending discrimination in the workplace on behalf of the LGBT community. I did not support gay marriage when I was in the Senate or running for president, as you know, and as President Obama and others held the same position. But it, for me, became an opportunity to do what I could as secretary of state to make the workplace fairer - something I had always supported and spoke out about. And then when I was out of the secretary of state position and once again free to comment on domestic matters, I very shortly came out in favor of fully equality, including gay marriage. link

    GROSS: So what's it like when you're in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage that you actually believe in? And you obviously feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn't support it - correct me if I'm reading it wrong.

    CLINTON: Well, I think you're reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said, just as the president has said, you know, just because you're a politician, doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. And you gather information. You think through positions. You're not 100 percent set - thank goodness - you're constantly reevaluating where you stand. That was true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So, for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working. And I think that, you know, being in the position that I was in the Senate - fighting employment discrimination, which we still have some ways to go - was appropriate at that time.

    I pretty much hate her answer. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    This business of geography controlling one's equality - among other things - is simply not consistent with being committed to equal and human rights.

    I wonder if she feels the same way about reproductive freedom: does she think geography should determine that, too?

    Ugh.  Just, ugh.


    Particularly (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    With background in my state.  She has to know we will all be dead before that happened.

    That said.   She has been a friend to my community in most ways about as long as any politician around.

    I tend to cut slack on this issue a bit.  Obama, Sanders, her.
    This issue overtook us all.  


    True (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    her position 8-12 years ago was the standard Democratic dogma, nobody wanted to make a federal case about it(it would have been ugly). Most  Washington Democrats weaselly, and in retrospect  wisely, used the old "It's a state issue" dodge.

    In the end the states acting as "The Laboratories of Democracy" did the right thing and overtook the politics of it from bottom up.


    In 2011, then Secretary of State Clinton, (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    spoke on the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was one of her best, boldest and moving speeches, declaring before the UN that gay rights are human rights.

    Of particular note was this line,
    which, essentially, appeared in the Supreme Court's landmark opinion of same sex marriage, Obergefellv Hodges (2015).  "This recognition does not occur all at once.  And, as it did, we understand that we are honoring rights that people already had, rather than creating new or special rights."

    Yes, she gave a good speech (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    Yet, it is worth noting that her speech quiet pointedly did not mention gay marriage in her list of violations of human rights. The right to marry was not addressed in her long list of human rights,

    And as late as June, 2014, she stated:

    So, for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working.

    That is a direct quote of what she said. It clearly illustrates that HRC's "states right position" was the same as Bernie Sanders. If HRC supporters want to criticize him for citing states' rights when it came to gay marriage - if it was not an acceptable position for Sanders - then it was not an acceptable position for HRC either.

    If the truth be told, neither were as good as they could have been on this issue but both were much better than most.


    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 06:06:59 PM EST
    The very next sentence
    And I think that, you know, being in the position that I was in the Senate - fighting employment discrimination, which we still have some ways to go - was appropriate at that time.
    explains this was her position during her time in the Senate, a position held by most of her colleagues at the time.

    Virtually the entire Democratic party has "evolved" on this issue, Hillary did a decent job explaining her path to enlightenment. This is a "when did you stop being your wife" type of question, I think Hillary did better then Obama.

    Never really heard much about Bernie's or Biden's explanations for their own personal evolutions but of course they wouldn't be as scrutinized and picked apart like Hillary's. The Clinton rules.


    Both Biden and Sanders (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    have spoken on the subject of marriage equity. The fact that you haven't heard something, in no way means that it didn't happin.

    As oculus has indicated, Biden may well have been the first to publicly come out for full marriage equity.

    Meet The Press - May 6, 2012

    Vice President Joe Biden has endorsed same-sex marriage, becoming the highest ranking American official to back marriage for gay and lesbian people. His comments signify a split within the Obama administration and may pave the way for President Obama -- who says he supports civil unions and is still evolving on the matter -- to also embrace equity.

    GREGORY: Have your views evolved?

    BIDEN: The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love.And that's what people are finding out what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they are marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals. [...]

    Biden has backed equal rights for the LGBT community throughout his career, but this is the first time he has publicly acknowledged his support of full marriage rights.  Link

    Somehow, in your zeal to defend HRC, you missed the point that I was making which was to quote you:

    Virtually the entire Democratic party has "evolved" on this issue.

    If Hillary's supporters want to chastise Sanders for citing "states rights" on gay marriage then they need to chastise HRC and virtually all the Democratic candidates for the very same actions.


    2012? You did say, 2012, didn't you? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    That's not being first in any spin, feint, or illusion.  That is being (along with every other self serving, political egotripper-in-charge,) as close to last as they can get without actually falling off the tail end of the movement.

    O.K. (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    Sounds like you may have information that I do not have. Which Democratic politicians came out for full marriage equity prior to 2012? I've googled this issue using various different criteria and haven't found anyone who didn't hedge their statements in some way (state rights, civil unions) prior to Biden's statement.

    I am really interested and hope you will share the information and the links you have.


    Perhaps we are both correct. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:44:32 AM EST
    In this movement, Pols didn't lead anything.

    They sat around for decades exchanging "maybe, somedays," "can't do thats," and "what do the polls say?"  

    All of them with their PeeWee Herman acts: "I know what you believe but what do I believe?"


    Exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    The Pols didn't lead anything.

    The gay rights activists lead on this all the way. They only got the full support of the Pols when they said, enough is enough, either we get your full support or we stop contributing and working for your sorry a$$es.


    This is an interesting piece of (none / 0) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:28:07 AM EST
    Information regarding marriage equity that I found when researching the subject. I though maybe Barney Franks would have rejected the states rights argument on marriage equity. That is not the case. Here is Barney Franks on the subject:

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on Tuesday insisted that a state-by-state approach was the only way to legalize same sex marriage.

    "There was a fundamental confusion here,' he said on MSNBC. "There has never been a practical law saying that what marriage is. Marriage has been left to the states."
    "The point is there is no federal law to be passed," he explained. "Look at the situation with race. When there were states that would not allow interracial marriage, even after the Civil Rights Act has passed in ’64 and '65, there was no federal law saying interracial marriage had to be allowed. It was done by the Supreme Court. The constitutional framework has always been states decide who gets married."

    "It has always been up to the states," Frank added. "The only federal rule on the subject was the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Democrats are trying to overthrow."

    An interesting argument. One that I will have to spend some time thinking about.


    That really (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    Is an interesting bit.   It shows how really stunning the court decision was and how quickly it happened.  

    It's really a fact I think that no one expected it.  Certainly not on the schedule it came.

    Mea culpa.  Back in the 90s when this really started in earnest I remember a back and forth I had with a friend in forum not unlike this one as he was arguing for fighting for gay marriage, he is straight, and I was saying it was a mistake to use the word and we should be fighting for all the rights, i.e. civil  unions, without using the word.  Because I just never thought gay "marriage" was achievable in my lifetime marriage was a magical restricted word.   I believed it.

    As the tide turned I long ago conceded the issue to him.   He is a FB friend and one of the first people I high fived on the big day.

    This is why I cut slack.


    The inexplicable tipping-point (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    The concept--followed by the reality--of a tipping-point could serve as a reminder for all of us about the pathways of a movement, about the formation of the eventual "the time has come."

    Thinking about any movement or a number of conventional wisdom-givens ... think about how change came about in such significant areas as slavery, the historical status of women here and internationally, the consideration of children as mere chattel and the acceptance of child labor and abuse, recent warfare such as Vietnam and Iraq, and--until recently, the barring of gays and lesbians from the enjoyment of full marriage dignity/right. It seems that momentous changes can often take the most perceptive even by surprise; and, maybe that is because we individuals who are not historians nor experts employed to study trends in depth can only see bits and pieces and parts of the mosaic of positive change that sweeps through societies from time to time. For that reason, it is hard to fault people--generally--for not being the first (or even second) in a major historical change. (See Alinsky on the pattern of movements.) It makes sense, imo, to cut some slack--excepting the most obstinate dead-ender resisters--and live the change by moving it forward.

    BTW: In a more down-to-earth view of the seemingly sudden political change reverberating from the halls of Congress, take a gander at how fast the worm turns on what might have been regarded as the entrenched Benghazi scenario until days ago ... even the status quo of a political quagmire can appear to shift suddenly.  And--of course--that is great.  Now, consider how all the steps/jabs/forays have been gathering toward a political crescendo for many months .... Was the obvious comment by Kevin McCarthy about the real reason for the "investigation" just in time to serve as a tipping-point for the converging positions?


    For example (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    Shut Down the Benghazi Committee

    From the Hillary Killer NYTimes


    Yep, Howdy (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    As my friend Susan said earlier today: We'll take our new ally in this--the NYTimes-where they are.  Take your allies where & when you can.

     Yoiks, but when the editorial called also for the Dems to quit the Committee which had become nothing more than "The Inquisition of Hillary Clinton," I did choke before I laughed about the pot and the kettle stuff.  Yet, maybe other papers will pick up the clue from the Times ... as they clearly did in all their diffuse "inquisition" on the going-nowhere email conjecture earlier this year.

    Looks like Hillary Clinton is having an excellent start to the month.  (Congressman Louise Slaughter, NY, is introducing a motion to shutdown the inquisition Benghaziii committee.  An ethics request is also being filed against the committee operation by Alan Grayson.)


    I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    She should not, at this point, want to appear before the committee.  

    Sort of a (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    "Please don't throw me on the briar patch" kind of thing.

    For the first time--visually--HRC (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 06:31:46 PM EST
    has the upper hand.  She should use it astutely.  IMO, she should definitely appear ... with bells on, but not with trumpets heralding her arrival.  Seriously, I am sure that she will show her bona fides as good public servant and strong American by appearing ready to answer all questions ... very directly and assertively.  

    The key is to be herself: strong, confident, experienced, direct in response.  I suspect that old Gowdy's committee is the one really facing the heat now ... if they overreach, seem too anti-Clinton, twitch, or sneeze, they lose in many ways.  Additionally, I am sure that HRC will make the point about the need to focus on what the American people want to focus on and what people want their elected officials to do in a very professional (albeit supremely pointed) way.  

    I can tell you one thing: The media will have to be thankful for the high viewership that a good presentation by HRC will give them.  Definitely, good TV; and, this time, probably good real life in the outcome that we would like to see.


    Just (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 08:41:31 PM EST
    saying that somehow Hillary's response to this is somehow vilified for doing and saying the same things as all the rest.

    You took her words out of context to infer her position in 2008 were  still held by her "as late as 2014". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misread the interview.

    Remember Biden voted for DOMA and DADT he was on the wrong side of history. His "evolution" story  

    The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love?
    Sounds like some pronouncement from the summer of love. Ok, I guess that worked for Joe and kudos to him coming for coming out when he did but it still boils down to they all changed their minds and there is really no political desirable way to say I was a bigot but now I am not.

    Frankly, I think they should all should be given a pass on this, just accept the fact that the evolution has taken place in all of them and the when and why of any particular case is rapidly becoming irrelevant.



    In this thread, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:17:34 AM EST
    the first person "vilified" for citing "state rights" for years on marriage equity was Bernis Sanders.

    Somehow I don't understand how pointing out the FACT that
    HRC held the same state rights position as Bernie is somehow treating her unfairly. She, as well as others, maintained that position for years as she very clearly stated.

    If Hillary's supporters want to "vilify" Bernie for past positions then IMO they need to also hold HRC accountable for her past positions as well.

    As much as you say you want to give everyone a pass, you are not giving Biden a pass when you bring up positions he held in the nineties and sneer at his "evolution story. It is a FACT that his evolution, no matter how it came about, resulted in him very publicly stating his full unqualified support of marriage equity before HRC.

    None of the Dem candidates were as good as they could have been on the subject but they have all lined up in support of marriage equity now.


    The (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 05:27:14 AM EST
    first post was actually about his states rights stand on gun control, then it morphed" at into some people "sneering" at Hillary's explanation of her evolution on gay marriage.

    I stated I am giving everybody a pass on the gay marriage issue, I guess I am ticked off that some people seem willing to give Biden a pass while holding Hillary's feet to the fire over this particular issue.

    Personally I have never vilified anyone on this issue as long as they have seen the light no matter what path or how long it took for them to find it.

    Like you I think that all candidates should be held to the same standards. We are probably arguing past each other here when I think we probably agree more then disagree. Maybe I am over sensitive to CDS at times, but it is always present.


    Continuation of my response (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:13:42 AM EST
    At no time did I sneer at Hillary's evolution on gay marriage, what I said to Keys Dan and to you at least twice was that if HRC's supporters are going to condemn a candidate's past states rights stance on gay marriage they need to condemn Hillary's as well.

    CDS was in no way involved with any of my comments. What was involved was the double standard being displayed by HRC's supporters. HRCs supporters double standard syndrome (HSDSS) is much more prevalent here on TL than CDS.

    IMO your argument about evolution and giving Dem candidates a pass on gay marriage should have started with jb and not me. It is past irritating, to see Hillary's supporters getting a pass on their comments and then having someone give me a lecture on my rebuttal.

    Also, if you had an issue about "some people sneering at Hillary's explanation of her evolution on gay marriage,"  IMO you should have taken that issue up with "some people" and not me.


    Yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:35:34 AM EST
    you are right and JB is wrong, frankly I missed your point there.

    But you did take Hillary's words out of context trying to prove it.

    And as late as
    June, 2014, she stated:
    So, for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working.
    . That's my only beef with you.

    We disagree on that point as well (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:38:00 AM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    I wasn't wrong about anything.  I was not defending HRC's or Biden's evolution on gay marriage or anything else.  I merely made a statement that Sanders has not only made states' rights arguments on gun control issues, he's done it on gay marriage as well.  It wasn't praise for HRC or a criticism of Sanders, it was just a fact, so your first instinct was correct and it was MO who interpreted it incorrectly and read too much into a simple statement.

    MoBlue was simply jumping the gun here in what she thought I was saying and she was wrong.


    What are the odds this (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:18:05 PM EST
    particular point of contention will fill up the rest of the comment capacity to this post?

    Not good, unless you throw in the Pope (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:13:25 PM EST
    but you just increased the number by three (your comment on the subject and two responses). Do you plan to add more?

    That's (2.00 / 2) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    probably why I missed MO's point in the first place. Typical of the haters to take a perceived "attack" on Sanders from a "supporter" of Hillary and use that as a reason to smear Hillary.

    Oh dear gawd (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    Now I'm a hater because I pointed out that HRC had cited states rights for years when it came to gay marriage just the same as Sanders.

    You view the my statement that Hillary had the same states' rights position as Sanders as a smear against Hillary. Yet, somehow you choose to view the same statement against Sanders as just a perceived attack.

    If it is a smear against Hillary for me to state that HRC cited states' for years when it came to gay marriage, then surely it was a smear when jb made that statement about Sander. You can't have it both ways. Either both statements were made by haters and meant to smear the candidate or neither were.


    This is way more true (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:37:44 PM EST
    than you realize.
    Maybe I am over sensitive to CDS at times, but it is always present.
    You cannot let go of your pre/misconception that Clinton has been "singled out". Sometimes, like now, you are giving CDS a presence that isn't really there. There are plenty of valid incidents -- you don't need to make up extra ones.

    Speaking only for myself, the problem (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 06:26:29 AM EST
    I have isn't with whether or if someone evolved into supporting same-sex marriage - although that is important - it's about the route they took to get there.

    I would have rather the candidates have stated that they just weren't there yet than to make the it's-up-to-the-states argument, because it says they're okay with geography determining whether or if people have the same basic civil and human rights.

    Would we accept the IUTTS (it's up to the states) argument on whether women can be paid as much as men?  Do we object to it when it comes to reproductive freedom?  Would we mind if the State of Mississippi decided that single women couldn't own property?

    I get that people's beliefs and opinions evolve - I doubt there is anyone among us here who hasn't evolved on more than one issue.  And I'm okay with that.  I'd rather hear the candidate say, "bear with me - I'm learning and talking to people and trying to let go of how I was raised and what my faith says.  My mind is opening, but it may take some time," than someone hiding behind putting it in the states' hands and thereby making it okay for the people not to have full, equal rights under the law unless they live in certain states.

    That's what I hated about Clinton's answer - it's an answer I have a problem with no matter who's making it.


    Ok (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:21:19 AM EST
    You hate what the Democratic orthodoxy was in the Senate circa 2007 and I agree that leaving an important civil rights issue up to the States is rather an iffy gamble but that's the way it was.

    Like it or not that's what a large majority of the Democrats were saying at the time. I guess because you rather hear their meaculpea being in the form of a moral ephinanny ala joes "all you need is love" rather then an historically accurate description of the political ephinnany achieved by the entire party, that is provided by Clinton you don't hesitate to bash her for it.


    You have a very interesting way of (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    turning something so that you can tsk-tsk people, and I have to say - I don't like it much.

    Regardless of what the majority of Democrats were saying with respect to same-sex marriage being best handled on a state-to-state basis, I am allowed to express my dislike for what feels to me like a very weasly way to address the question of whether someone is for or against the issue itself.  It's equivalent to saying that it doesn't matter whether I believe in gender equity in matters of pay, and it doesn't matter whether I believe in reproductive choice, because, well, some majority of Democrats decided how it was going to be handled and I just have to accept it.

    Do I expect too much from people who hold themselves out as leaders?  Yeah, I guess I do.  I'm one of those crazy people who think we need to raise the bar, not keep lowering it by using the metric of "better than the other guy."

    I can certainly accept that it may have made sense to build a groundswell of support on a state-to-state basis, but that's strategy, not principle.  I think it should have been possible for someone to express their belief that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex couples, even while trying to accomplish that goal on a state-by-state basis.  

    For me, that's the sticking point.  It's not the strategy I have a problem with, it's these politicians who  substituted that strategy for a position on the issue itself.  And to that extent, I think I can "bash" any and all of those who resorted to that tactic.

    And for what it's worth, my original comment was in response to MOBlue's posting of what Clinton said on the subject, which is why I spoke to Clinton's comments; to the extent any of the other candidates, including Sanders, had similar positions, consider what I said about Clinton's comments to extend to them, as well, and stop being so hypersensitive about Clinton and assuming I am singling her out.


    I Guess (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    I should be honored that you find my way to be "interesting", but you did appear to single her out.
    I pretty much hate her answer
    and set up a straw man,
    I wonder if she feels the same way about reproductive freedom: does she think geography should determine that, too?

     Maybe if you had said
    Ugh.  Just, ugh.
     addressed to all Democrats circa 2007 maybe I would not perceive it you singling out Hillary.

    I "singled" her out because it was her (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    remarks that MOBlue posted - why don't you seem to get that?

    If she had posted Sanders' comments, or Obama's, I'd have responded to that, but in the comment to which I was responding, it was only what Clinton had said.

    And you don't, still, seem to grasp that "well, it's always been up to the states" is not the same as stating what one believes or what one wants to advocate for.  Which is why I asked if she had the same states' rights answer to reproductive freedom, because that's also an issue that is being addressed on a state-by-state basis.  

    I want leaders who aren't afraid to lead, not ones who wait to see where everyone else is headed and then run to the head of the line and pretend they were there all along.  Is that what Clinton and Sanders and others have done and are doing?  Would that be considered "evolving" on the issue?

    I guess what's at work here is that you don't have much objectivity in you where Clinton is concerned; it may well be that she's the best chance Democrats have to retain control of the WH, but I don't think it serves any of us well to hit the fainting couch any time anyone dares to express disagreement with some position or statement by Clinton.

    Get a grip, would you?


    Well (1.80 / 5) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    at least you admitted you did single her out. The first step in recovering from CDS, congratulations.

    You continue to miss the part where the (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 06:48:41 AM EST
    Initial post on his stance on gun control morphed into his states rights stance on gay marriage. Here is the beginning of the thread on states rights on gay marriage:

    That's the consensus feeling (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 07:50:55 PM CDT
    ever since he voted against the Brady Bill. And he took a conservative stance after Newtown by eluding that gun control should be a state's rights issue. Should be interesting to see how he handles it when pressed on the matter.

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5
    It's not just gun control (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 10:45:06 AM CDT
    He also cited states' rights for years when it came to gay marriage, even though he voted against DOMA.

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5

    The little video excerpt (none / 0) (#135)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:47:45 AM EST
    that I saw re: HRC and gay marriage had one little bit in it about how she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    That was, of course, a while ago... but it wasn't just that she was for the States deciding, as a concept she was agin it.

    I don't know about Sanders.

    Not out to compare them on this issue.

    But, frankly, I don't know how anyone at any time could recite such garbage. And that includes Obama c. 2008 - he even cites his religious upbringing to justify this craven political pandering.


    Blue, my comment (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    was not intended to compare or contrast Mrs. Clinton's positions with Senator Sanders or Vice President Biden.  Rather, it was to illustrate what I felt was in accord with her statement in the Terry Gross interview cited, where Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that she was late to marriage equality, not supporting gay marriage as a senator or during the 2008 campaign. But, that as Secretary of State she claimed that it became an opportunity for her  to do what she could.  

    The UN address "gay rights are human rights," is an important example of doing what she could in her position as Secretary of State.

     Very true, that that speech did not call for marriage equality, but it was among primal building blocks for world-wide equality which may mean in despotic regimes, gays not being thrown off tall buildings.  And, of course,  in more enlightened and civilized countries, such as ours, the building blocks for  civil rights with full equality.

    I found it interesting, too, that the essence of these ideas, if not the essence of some of her words from that speech, found their way into the Obergefell opinion written for the majority by Justice Kennedy. While these ideas and words were not unique to Mrs. Clinton, the promulgation of them from the platform of Secretary of State was.


    Dan, I never read into your comment (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:48:36 PM EST
    That you were trying to contrast Mrs. Clinton's position with the positions held by Sanders or Biden.

    I understand what you were trying to illustrate and for the most part I agree with you.

    OTOH, I was also trying to make a point.

    I have reviewed my comments in this sub-thread and as far as I can see not once did I made a derogatory remark about HRC. What I did do is provide proof that Hillary used the states' rights argument. To quote HRC:   "marriage had always been a matter left to the states."

    Now we see commenters doubling down on this double standard. The current meme is: stating that Bernie Sanders cited states' rights for years when it came to gay marriage is just stating facts and in no way is an attack on Sanders but my stating the fact that Mrs. Clinton cited states' rights for years when it came to gay marriage vilifies her. Not only does stating the fact that her position is the same as Sanders vilify her but it is "Typical of the haters to take a perceived "attack" on Sanders from a "supporter" of Hillary and use that as a reason to smear Hillary."

    The comment about Sanders is just a fact and the same comment about Hillary vilifies her and is a smear by a hater.

    This type of reasoning goes way, way beyond my comprehension.


    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:09:05 AM EST
     I understood your position, but only wanted to clarify mine in view of subsequent comments. And, it seems so unproductive for those who support either Mrs. Clinton or Senator Sanders to attempt to misrepresent or even vilify the other. There are other, responsible reasons to make a choice.

      With regard to their respective positions on gay rights, both have been long-term supporters, and, on marriage equality, essentially, on similar evolutionary timelines.

     And, both, initially,looked to the role of the states in permitting and recognizing same sex marriage--and the state by state approach to change.  The decisive consideration was the constitutionality of the gender-based discrimination in state licensing and recognition.

      Of course, there is no comparisons to be made, even today, with any of the Republican contenders. The new battle is the sub rosa game of trumping the equality set forth in Obergefell with "religious freedom."

     From the invitation of Clerk Davis at the Washington Nunciature to attempts, once again, by Indiana's Gov. Pence, and some bakers and florist in-between, the goal is to enact discriminatory laws.

       Both Clinton and Sanders, I believe, are on the same page. But, I am pleased that both are primary contenders, each shaping and re-enforcing the positions of the other, in this matter as well as others.  


    Biden wins on this (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    particular issue.  

    I think you are probably right (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    Biden voted in favor of DOMA but came out publicly in favor of full marriage equity in May, 2012.

    Sanders voted against DOMA and according to reports endorsed Vermont's successful Marriage Equality Act in 2009, but I can't locate him coming out publicly in favor of full marriage equity before May, 2012.


    I grade on a curve (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    I don't see (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    Any path for Biden to win.  Even more so than Hillary, he is inexorably tied to the Obama adminusttation, for good and bad.  Add in his history with older liberals (which many voters under 40 won't know, nor care about), and what does he bring to the table?

    If someone is truly in the middle, at least with Hillary, you get the chance to elect the first female president and champion of women's issues.

    According (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    to the polls there really is no path for Biden but if Biden is gonna run, he's gonna run.

    I'm frankly sick of hearing is he gonna run or is he not gonna run. Make a decision Joe.

    If he hasn't made a decision by the first debate all talk of him running should completely quit.

    We less than four months from Iowa. At this point even if he decides today he is going to have to scramble. Realistically if he decides today he'd probably come in 3rd in Iowa since Bernie and Hillary are away ahead of him in gathering support. And then he can come in 3rd in NH, 2nd in SC and what in Nevada I don't know. And all of that is even before Super Tuesday which he might carry Delaware.


    The only (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    thing he brings to the table is making Hillary look like a spring chicken.

    I also don't see a path for Biden (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CST on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    But I don't think it has to do with Obama.  Not for nothing, the man did win twice, and his approval rating now is higher than it was for most of 2011.

    Let's not make the Al Gore mistake again.

    He just has no core constituency.


    Bob Somerby on (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Nemi on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 06:52:07 AM EST
    Supplemental: The developing tale of the son's dying words!

    If Biden told this story to Dowd, he broke no eternal rule. Nothing in the tablets Moses carried provided any specific direction about this type of conduct.

    That said, Dowd's column placed the current White House campaign within a deeply emotional, melodramatic framework. Especially coming from her, it also created an ugly type of story:

    So deeply vile are the Clintons that it was the sainted young man's last wish that they not return to power! Even as the son "was losing his nouns," he maintained his Clinton-hatred.

    We don't have any idea who the "good people" are in this mess. We don't know if Joe Biden is a better person than Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.

    We also don't especially care. Long ago, we came to understand a basic point: People in politics aren't our friends. Beyond that, we have no way of finding out what they're "really like."

    Today, in its headline, Politico finally says that Biden has been mourning but that he's also been "calculating." Only the people who pose as our press corps could have failed to raise that possibility until now.

    Today, we're told that Biden was her source. Question: If that's true, how could Dowd have known that the story he told her was accurate? Also, what made the pundit corps feel so certain that the story was true?

    Answer: Our pundit corps doesn't work on such considerations. Our pundits repeat approved stories, full stop. It's narrative all the way down!

    Only one flaw here with Bob Somerby (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    He's on target until his wrapup.

    He refers to them as pundits

    The definition of pundit: "an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public"

    We know that's BS, so maybe Somerby should drop the word "pundit" and replace it with "punditizer". Can't find it in a dictionary but the definition is obvious.

    Punditizer: 1) the source of verbal diarrhea


    Here's a working link for your flawed one (none / 0) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    Somerby link - Supplemental: The developing tale of the son's dying words!

    If he had left the Clintons out of the write-up it would be an interesting piece. Instead he reverted to puditizing about a punditizer. Ultimately doing nothing more than what he is trashing.


    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 04:17:15 PM EST
    there was 16 paragraphs in Dowds column basically bashing Hillary before she mentions Biden (In a piece Titled Joe Biden, no less) I don't think Somerby spent that much time talking about Clinton.



    Actually he did (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:29:49 PM EST
    He mentions the Clinton's 25 times in the article.

    Actually he didn't (none / 0) (#138)
    by Nemi on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:23:54 AM EST
    Citing Politico he writes:
    "Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd"
    "the White House should not revert to the Clintons."

    Linking to Dowds piece:
    "he maintained his Clinton-hatred:"

    and citing Dowd:
    "the White House should not revert to the Clintons."

    Then in his own words he writes:
    "So deeply vile are the Clintons ..."
    "(Translation: He isn't like the Clintons!)"
    "We don't know if Joe Biden is a better person than Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton."

    [Followed by my favorite part: "We also don't especially care. Long ago, we came to understand a basic point: People in politics aren't our friends. Beyond that, we have no way of finding out what they're "really like." ... But that's beside the point.]

    "Those Clintons!

    All in all 9 times. Most of which are "the Clintons", plural (not 'Clinton's'). So what's with the 25?


    He wrote the column (none / 0) (#146)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    In the column, Hillary, or Bill, or both are mentioned 25 times.

    Dowd managed the feat 18 times.

    So here is your tally. Between Dowd and Somerby, on the topic of "Beau's deathbed wish", the Clintons get mentioned 43 times without Beau (presumably) ever mentioning them even once.

    On the Internet, that's what you call "Clintons for clicks".


    Ah! But your link (none / 0) (#166)
    by Nemi on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 06:05:26 AM EST
    (hm, apparently I should have checked that too!) is to a different story than my flawed one. So I'll stick with my 'only 9'. :)

    I wonder how many angels... (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:24:54 PM EST

    Thanks (none / 0) (#125)
    by Nemi on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    ... forgot to check link before posting.

    Is an announcement near? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    Vice President Joe Biden is nearing a decision on whether to run for president, and it could come as early as within the next seven to 10 days, according to three people familiar with his deliberations.

    Two of those people said he is leaning toward entering the race. Still, they caution that family considerations remain the overriding concern and would be the reason he doesn't run. His wife, Dr. Jill Biden, has said that should the vice president launch a bid for the Oval Office, "of course" she would "be on board."

    Even if Biden decides to seek the Democratic nomination before the party's first debate on Oct. 13, he likely would not participate, sources told CBS News. link

    With the exception of Sanders, the HRC alternatives are pretty lame.

    It comes across to me, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    as if he is already in.  Announcement to follow.

    You are probably right (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:42:11 AM EST
    Biden For President appeals to me .000099% more than the appeal of Jim Webb For President. Which translates into little or no appeal.

    This is from CNN a few days ago (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:58:31 AM EST
    It covers all the standard obvious reasons why he should not run.   The ones we have all heard but I think this may be the nut-

    The appeal of Joe Biden, one of the most likeable and personable figures in American politics, should not outweigh the overall needs of the party and a realistic assessment of the chances that he has to win the nomination. The Sanders campaign has had a positive effect for the Democrats, breathing some life into the party and pressing the major candidate to deal with crucial issues.

    It is not at all clear that Biden entering the campaign would have the same impact.

    If Biden announces that he won't run, he could be an incredibly important figure in a Democratic victory. He could greatly benefit Clinton on the campaign trail, helping her to energize nervous Democrats and to point to the successes of the current administration without having to suffer from all the baggage.

    Rather than being a spoiler who opens up more wounds within a party trying to rebound, he could be the player who helps Hillary Clinton bring together the coalition that keeps the White House in Democratic hands.

    I've never like Joe Biden. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by masslib on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    I never understood the talk of what a great guy he is.

    And (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    There is one reason I can think of why he might be doing what he is doing which honestly makes no sense to me otherwise.

    He is at least giving the press something to talk about besides Hillary's emails.


    Following that thought one more step (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    They say the last part of Oct is the "deadline" for a decision.   Hillary's Benghazi testimony is Oct 22nd.

    Just thinking out loud.


    My thinking is that (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    Biden always wanted to run, but the "inevitability" bruited about initially, suppressed his desires. Falling polls were seen as being a bellow to the embers of his long-time dream. And, the Benghazi hearing may well have been a good wait-n-see moment. Not so much as to the actual facts and performance, but, how the media decided to  play it.  

    And, then, the "Benghazi Special Committee to Cause Falling Polls for Hillary," was formally announced by Kevin McCarthy as an example of effective Republican strategy.  So effective,  that the hearing will be a boost for Hillary, and a bust for Republicans. If that Committee is not disbanded before hand.

     So, Biden can no longer hang back and see how things are likely to go.  It seems Biden cannot countenance retirement. Nor is he the type to become a lobbyist.  He should, however, look reality in the face, assume the senior statesman role he has earned, and hope for a  cabinet position in a Clinton Administration.



    A persistent thought (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    keeps occurring to me: It is fascinating that Politico is often the publication writing these Biden stories; and, that either NYT (or, lately, the partner in polls, etc., CBS) carries the Biden stories on top as well.  That may be nothing more than a coincidence, of course.

    Because I am such a strong HRC supporter, my responses during this speculation period are naturally biased.  I have always liked the personality of Joe Biden ... but, there are areas in his background about which I'm not so sanguine.  For me, I hope it doesn't happen for a different reason.

    My concern has a kind of short-hand to it: Anita Hill and the apparent role of then-Senator Joe Biden in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings (together with the public treatment of Ms. Hill.) Reminders of that still trouble me; tho, normally, the negative aspect is tucked away somewhere in the memory retention.  Now ... taking it a step further, it is quite simple for me: If Joe Biden's ultimate role is to be a spoiler for HRC, that is a deal-breaker beyond deal-breakers for me.  The thought of the situation turning into a debacle where the only woman that either major party has ever had with a very good chance at becoming the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT is displaced of that chance by such a spoiler is nightmare-producing. The old boys of the Anita Hill era return.

    My party--the Democratic Party--has long talked about the Repubs' War on Women.  It seems to me that the burden of proof is shifting ... if the real or perceived reason for a spoiler is premised upon the anti-feminist chant of "cold & calculating," etc., well ... don't even talk to me about the difference.  

    Deep breath, Christine ... for now, I'll go back to my all-along assumption that the razzmatazz fills the predicted media let's-keep-the-race-close-&-our-revenues-high.  That also shows the Biden's how regarded Joe is ... and, that has its own purpose.  The Repub Politico and Wall Street Journal metronome of stories--joined in this season by the almost infamous NYT/CBS group--has a different look.  I'll tell myself anew: Simmer down, Chris.


    I'm not a strong HRC supporter (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    In fact, it is no secret that I support Sanders whose positions more closely aligne with my own.

    This whole idea of Biden jumping in to save the Democratic Party from Hillary Clinton does not sit well with me.

    Once again, if the establishment wants to provide alternatives to HRC then they need to do much better than Biden, O'Malley or two warmed over Republicans like Webb and Chafee.


    The potential effect, MO Blue (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    Your "does not sit well with me" phrase says a lot here.  IMO, a Biden entry will divide the party.  Forget all the talk about "more the merrier" ... take a look at the merry-go-round party of the Repubs. as we might say.  For the purpose of choice--and at this late date--the choice between HRC and Sanders is a legitimate choice because it is a choice between differing ideas/approaches in some significant areas.

    After taking my deep breath, the way that the "Biden decision" dilemma has come about and is now being portrayed (or used) has a fetid aroma about it.  Politico? WSJ? Who is shopping what for what purpose?


    I'm pretty much a policy wonk (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    I'm not against having more choices even though I would prefer better choices.

    Had other candidates jumped in saying I have a better vison for America and here it is, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, that is not what I am seeing happening in most cases and definitely not with Biden. Unless, of course, you share his opinion that trade deals like TPP are good for the average American.


    The comments to this same BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    diary at dk include some critical of Sanders' record in Congress, broadly summarized as he doesn't make any effort to build support for the issues about which he feels sostrongly, w/the exception of legislation supporting veterans.  If this accurate, what do you think?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    I would rather base my opinions on facts rather than rely on vague blog comments. YMMV.

    Please direct me to the facts on this (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Issue.  Thank you.

    Your issue (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    You are welcome to do the research.

    BTW, I don't think it would be productive to trade negative DK (or other Dem blog) comments regarding the Dem candidates. Within seconds, I could find comments about HRC, Biden and others that would make "Does not work to get policies passed." look like child play. Pursuing this would not be pretty and I prefer not to play.


    Clarifications (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    If the upcoming Dem debates serve a clarification and edification function, we should be able to clarify matters about previous positions, accomplishments, approaches to legislation and negotiation, etc.  Well ... certainly, some clarification along those lines.  

    I must admit that the match-up for the first Dem debate could prove more interesting than originally presumed. In addition to the usual personality critique always accompanying a debate ... there are genuine areas calling for clarification, such as the matter that you raised, oculus.  The issues concerning several key components need to be explored;  Economic priorities--what expected results & what funding mechanisms; ACA evaluation and refinement; Education goals, in general and college tuition help, in particular; Gun control --status quo or more (and specific suggestions); and, naturally, a discussion of pros/cons of TPP, Subjects for starters....


    But if you read that Politico article, (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    you could easily get whiplash veering between the breathless any-day-now assertions and the wait-just-a-hot-second caveats - both of which come from unnamed sources, in the same article.

    There's this:

       He's finally close. Confidants of Vice President Joe Biden expect him to make a decision next weekend, or shortly thereafter, on whether to launch an epic battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

        Several people who have visited Biden recently said he seems to be leaning "yes."

        "Nothing he has heard in the past couple of months has deterred him," said one Democrat close to the process.

        A former Senate colleague of Biden's said, after visiting the vice president, "He loves what he does, and he has a great deal of confidence that he could contribute in a meaningful way. He's willing to face, ultimately, having his final political expedition be a defeat."

    But then, there's this:

       One longtime friend said the long windup -- and the fact that no staff has been hired -- tells its own story.

        "If you're going to run, you run," the friend said. "Every time he pushes back a decision, that's the ultimate tell."

        A third recent Biden visitor said: "I can't see how he can wake up one morning and think some big tidal wave sweeps him in. The raw politics just aren't there."

        After describing their hunches, friends and advisers almost universally added that they remain unsure which way he'll go.

    So, essentially, and sorry for the crudity, there are two groups of unnamed sources all talking out of their a$$es for the chance to make it into the coveted pages of Politico.

    It's Mike Allen:  this is what you're going to get.

    And this is why I pretty much hate Politicoo, although they are not alone in their sacrifice of good journalism/reporting on the altar of click-bait.


    So basically (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    same old same old. Some people say he will while others say he won't.

    Though not having a staff set up wouldn't be one of the reasons. I would think you could gather them pretty quickly but then maybe not. I really don't know.

    The truth is once the first debate happens and if he misses it then I hope everybody will quit talking about him.


    They won't (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    Until he speaks about it.   I predict he will not run and we will hear the near Oct 22.

    That's giving the benefit of a doubt that he is a good a guy as he wants us to think.


    Surely (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    the chatter is going to die down though. Missing the first debate really says "I'm not running" even if you don't come out and actually say it.

    Actually the " Draft Biden" fruit cakes (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    Have specifically said they will not stop just because he does not make the debate.

    No it will not stop until he kills it and probably not then.    Remember Elizabeth Warren.   And she never did any of the "leg showing" Biden is wallowing in.


    Yeah, i'm sure (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    and the press will continue to lap it up. I wonder if even after a few caucuses it will be enough for them to give up.

    I guess I would like to think (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    He is considering things beyond his own self interest.

    Admittedly naive I suppose.


    Or if he really wants... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    to do the country a favor, get in the race, split the establishment vote and/or the too afraid of Republicans to think big vote, and deliver the nomination to Sanders.

    Actually (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:57:44 PM EST
    according to latest polling if he gets in the race he pushes Sanders down to 3rd place. So in reality while he takes more from Hillary than he does from Sanders, Hillary has more a margin than Sanders and Sanders goes to 3rd place.

    Can you let me enjoy my daydreaming... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    for another 6 months at least? ;)

    Yes, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    it certainly seemed that way hence the constant pushing out of the date to "decide". Now the reason for him to move it up would be the same "reasons".

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    She will be elected by illegal aliens

    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    That article made me laugh. Maybe it shouldn't have but it did.

    It shouldn't have (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    They aren't laughing

    Oh, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    I know but it's not like we haven't been there before. At some point people have to get tired of that kind of BS.

    This is just getting silly (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    The term sh!t or get off the pot comes to mind.

    I don't think he's running.  I think if he was he would have said so by now.   Why on earth would he dawdle until he misses the first debate.

    As far as this post about TTP, very good illustration of what we have been saying about how his "poll numbers are high" because he not a freakin candidate.

    Once he is they will be in the toilet.


    It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    that he wasn't supposed to decide until November and then everybody started talking about forget about Joe if he's going to miss the first debate. Then all of a sudden voila Biden is going to now decide before the debate.

    This nonsense has been going on for months and it's getting beyond tiresome. Run Joe or say you're not running however once you jump in the fray you're not going to get the same treatment you're getting now.


    Oh my gawd, is Biden trying to stifle (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    Sanders' ability to be known by potential voters?  How dare he miss one of the limited # of debates. The outrage!

    Oh my gawd (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    are you attempting to be amusing or just snide?

    It is often (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:50:38 AM EST
    Hard to tell

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    Come on (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:13:30 AM EST
    Even you have to admit you are the queen of cryptic.

    That said, cryptic is mostly ok with me.


    I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    I always get her.

    Or at least (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:51:04 AM MDT

    I always get her.

    You think you do :)

    No (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:24:50 PM EST

    I do too (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    Maybe it's a German thing? How German are you?

    Not a drop. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    And, BTW, Hillary states she is not (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    interested in being anyone's VP.  

    If Big Labor... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 05, 2015 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    wasn't as prone to the influence of corruption as any large institution(s), and based endorsements solely on what's best for the memberships, they'd be uniformly behind Bernie no question.

    But sadly, we know the big unions are as prone to play Machiavellian bullsh*t as big banks.

    Bernie has nobody to pass his agenda. (none / 0) (#56)
    by masslib on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    Sherrie Briwn would have gotten a lot of union support.  Sanders is an island unto himself.

    Couldn't the same be said... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 10:31:29 AM EST
    for any president with a D after their name in our current climate?  Unless you want a Wall Street D, they can find easy common ground with Brand R on issues of importance to grifters.

    Goes without saying the presidency is less than half the battle.


    Nope. I mean he doesn't even (none / 0) (#60)
    by masslib on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:07:12 AM EST
    Have Dems in Congress endorsing him or signing on to his proposals.  No, this is Bernie specific.  It may be his my way or the highway mindset.  Or, his not being a Democrat.  Or, some combination, but he has no support in Congress.

    Then it's time to elect people who (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    will pass that agenda.

    Or, maybe it's time for the Sanders supporters (none / 0) (#68)
    by masslib on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    To elect more Socialists.

    Any Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sj on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    worth his party affiliation would love to pass Sanders' agenda. If they don't want to, that should tell you something.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 05:48:14 AM EST
    Congress need not sing kumbaya and embrace Bernie, only embrace the ideas that will benefit their constituents. Aka do their damned jobs.

    Teamsters and Laborers... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    among other unions are very much I favor of the Keystone pipeline. Biden should have no trouble picking up that support after Hillary invited them to pound sand. On the other hand Hillary is better positioned to pick up some of Tom Steyer's money.

    More POLITICO on Biden (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    Exclusive: Biden himself leaked word of his son's dying wish

    One nugget

    Aug. 1, to be exact -- the day renowned Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd published a column that marked a turning point in the presidential speculation.
    Story Continued Below
    According to multiple sources, it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a dying son, Beau's face partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because "the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values."

    Why (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    am I not completely surprised to learn this?

    How will we ever know? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    Joe wouldn't make that up--would he???

    OH MY (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    If not (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    Joe then who? Even if Dowd heard it from another source she surely would have verified it with him when they met. I don't think Maureen Dowd is far around the Journalistic bend to publish the story without at least a tacit approval of VP.

    I don't recall any push back from the Biden camp to the original story and it seems now, more likely then not he wanted that story out there.

    This all fits into the "struggling with his emotions" meme that has been the rationale for his indecision. I have never bought that BS.

    I can forgive him for setting up the narrative in the first place, politicians love a good backstory after all. However I am beginning to despise him for turning  Dowd's cheezy melodrama into this never ending soap opera.


    Since Joe wants it to be about Biden family values (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    Let's respin that flummery in terms of Biden prodigal #2:

    ...it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a wired, dry-mouthed son, Hunter's nose partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because "the White House should not revert to the Clintons because they'd take the secret DEA cocaine stash and blow it all in Mena."

    I tell ya, I ain't got no respect...


    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 07:54:01 PM EST
    it seems that he's really gone overboard with this whole thing.

    Three words: jumped the shark (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 09:00:31 PM EST
    I think this is going to do it for ol' Joe, which is fine with me.

    I hate to say it, but this, I think, is the real Joe, and is why I just don't want him anywhere near this race.


    Kevin Drum weighs in: (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 08:23:09 PM EST
    Joe (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    is a pinata all over the internet today. Basically I think people in general are tired of the Biden melodrama and I for one am sick of the "speculating".

    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:23:47 PM EST
    that the majority of the melodrama at the start and still now is being carried out by "Draft Biden", which happens to be run by now unemployed Josh Alcorn, former chief of staff to Beau. I would also label him as the most likely candidate to have given Dowd the dying wish request.

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 06:53:36 AM EST
    I'm just sick of all the speculating. #$%^ or get off the pot but like Howdy says above even Joe saying no probably won't end all of it.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    he did speak to Dowd and apparently say all those things but now it's "offensive". Alrighty then.

    Draft Biden super pac (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    If this is true it's interesting (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    Clinton prepares oppo on Biden

    The oppo-research project reveals how seriously Clintonworld is taking the prospect of a Biden candidacy. So far, Clinton hasn't taken any direct shots at Biden herself. But behind the scenes, her loyalists are making moves to blunt Biden's campaign should he run. "Even implicitly his campaign's argument would be `I have integrity and you don't,'" a Clinton ally said. "If that's the message, this could be messier than Obama-Clinton '08. At least Obama had the Iraq War vote and could make a case about generational change. This guy" -- Biden -- "is older than she is and just as conventional."

    A spokesperson for the Clinton campaign declined to comment.

    I said IF

    Of course they are preparing oppo (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    The article makes it seem like it's an evil thing, but it would be campaign malpractice not to do so.

    Even if the campaign itself isn't doing it, the work us being done.  Just as there is opportunity research going on in the Sanders, Webb, O'Malley, Chafee, and yes, even Biden's camps about HRC and each other.

    Why does this seem shocking?


    Did someone say it was shocking (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    Or did you assume interesting means shocking

    Why are you always so angry? (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    Yesterday's NYT had an article (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    about Hillary Clinton's debate prep.  There is at least former associate of Biden helping her prep.  Speaking of leaks, who is feeding the NYT what is probably highly confidential info?  NYT doesn't say.

    Saw these this morning (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    Very interesting on Biden.  Pretty much unanimous, stay out.

    Some said as a result of his emotional state he should not even be VP

    typical Hillary stuff from Heilman/Halperin but the Biden comments are interesting

    Interesting (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    how the worm has turned on this story in a few short days.

    Biden is (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:55:57 AM EST
    all in for the TPP.

    Hillary Clinton, however, just announced that she opposes it.

    Biden for.
    Clinton against.

    If that issue makes it to the debate, if Biden decides to wade into it, it could add a bit of spice to the proceeding.

    Not much spice (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:41:47 AM EST
    99% of the country likely thinks the TPP is a stadium or an arena.

    Or maybe a new brand of toilet paper... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:44:26 AM EST

    I spoke to a person recently (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    Who insisted that it was a "new government agency".  Like the NSA of the EPA.  

    "Why do we need another agency? More government!!! That always the democrat solution!!"


    Oh.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:09:25 AM EST
    I just read a quote...

    As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.

    So - we don't know what she has "learned about it".
    And, additionally, although we kinda know her position "as of today", it certainly leaves the door wide for a change of position as of tomorrow - when she learns something else about it...

    So, I don't honestly know where she is on this and many other issues.

    What could she have "learned about it" on the eve of the debate that she couldn't have learned about it in June?


    Well, she knew enough about it when she (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:57:51 AM EST
    was Secretary of State to advocate for it, so there's that.

    So, my take is that she stayed out of the fray once things really started to heat up on it, long enough to know where all the other candidates were on it, and until it was more or less too late to actually use the bully pulpit to do anything about either the agreement itself, or the fast-track legislation that is going to make it much easier to get this agreement through the Congress.

    Since, by all accounts, this is a person who consumes and absorbs massive quantities of information, with access to sources who know more than the rest of us do, I find it unlikely that she didn't know enough months ago to take the position she's taking today, so that leaves me with two possibilities: she didn't want to be seen as undermining the president at a time when she wasn't a declared candidate (Hillary is nothing if not a good Democrat, you know), and/or she thought it better to try to blend in with the herd of 20-some candidates with opinions, perhaps with the hope no one would pay much attention to her advocating for the agreement when she was in the administration.

    I'm not saying she couldn't or shouldn't be able to change her mind or "evolve" on any issue, but if you look at the history of this agreement, it does not appear from what I've read that it is now, in its present form, worse than it was when she thought it the gold standard of trade agreements - there is an argument that in some respects, it is actually better.

    Is it better to any degree that she's now coming out against it?  Sure.  Should we - can we - trust that this is a position she is committed to?  I have no idea, but it's all we have for now.

    I have a sinking feeling this is some kind of 11-dimensional chess move, though, and it hurts my brain to think about it.


    There you (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:12:04 AM EST
    guys go again, looking a gift horse in the mouth.

    For years progressives have begged for Democrats to change positions on some of these big issues, now that we have managed to get one of the biggest to listen to us all you can do is nit pick about the timing and the tone.

    I am under no illusion that this was not, a least partly, driven by poll numbers and politics, but so what?

    Theoretically our leaders are elected to enact the will of the people but recent history has shown that all to often the national Democratic party, Hillary and Obama included, has been all too willing to bow down to the corporations.

    Even if Hillary is merely pandering she is at least starting to shift the "overton window" within the party.

    We should all be cheering wildly over this rather "hurting our brains" finding reasons to be cynical.


    I believe I quite clearly stated that (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    it was better that she was coming out against it than not - how is it you always happen to miss this kind of information?

    I wish I was the kind of person who could just turn off her brain and take each thing on each day as if there were no context for it or history attached to it, but try as I might to just be a blank slate for others to scribble their opinions onto, I just can't do it.

    So, yes, while I can and will take this "victory," I reserve the right to remain skeptical that it is the commitment we need it to be for the long term and not just an electoral strategy.

    Because if Clinton is, in fact, elected, the rubber of all these evolved positions is going to meet the hard road of governing and leadership, and I'd like to be more confident that those positions won't also fall victim to and be sacrificed for political advantage.


    Sorry Anne (2.00 / 2) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    You did not clearly state anything. After 5 paragraphs of implicit and explicit Hillary bashing, you almost reluctantly concede
    Is it better to any degree that she's now coming out against it?  Sure.
    then in the very next sentence go back to cynicism.
    Should we - can we - trust that this is a position she is committed to?

    For the record I share your cynicism about all politicians, and while I find most of your commentary intelligent and well thought out, it just seems to me that when it comes to HRC, you and many others allow the cynicism to rise to an unwarranted fever pitch


    "Hillary bashing"? (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    What a crock. Pointing out that a candidate's changing positions look to be transparently political, rather than "evolving" on an issue is not bashing. It's called awareness.

    In fact, Anne was quite clear. That you refuse you read what's written is your problem.  


    Is it possible you may be (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    hypersensitive about anything you perceive as being negative that has to do with Clinton?  Because you seem to be just on people like glue the moment you detect even a whiff of negativity.

    Why so hypervigilant?  We're just talking here, batting ideas and thoughts around, responding to what we're seeing and hearing.  I generally find lentinel just relentlessly negative, so my response to her was intended to address her negativity with some balanced, nuanced thought (which is pretty much the antithesis of "fever pitch").

    I do think it's better that Clinton has taken a position against the TPP, and I said so - but note, please, that Clinton herself was the one who attached a lot of wiggle room to her support, and in my opinion, that is the genesis for the skepticism.

    Should you, perhaps, be taking issue with Clinton's message, and not those who have dared to notice it?  Because it is her hesitation juxtaposed against her previous strong support, that gets balls like this rolling:

    Jonathan Chait:

    But Clinton's opposition to TPP is a little different, because she served as secretary of State during the treaty negotiations and never registered her dissent. Indeed, she praised the agreement over and over and over, even calling it "the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field." Now Clinton has repudiated a treaty with which she has closely associated herself.

    She has framed her opposition in carefully hedged terms that leave her multiple escape avenues. "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," she said, going on to add, "I don't believe it's going to meet the high bar I have set." Is anybody going to believe that she will actually oppose the treaty as president? Sure, she might slightly mollify some supporters in labor, who would like cover to support her candidacy even though they disagree on the agreement. But she will also do more damage to her overall credibility and reputation for conviction -- which happens to be the biggest single problem she faces right now.

    So, maybe you could dial down your fevered approach to this, put down the pom-poms once in a while, and get out of defensive mode - I honestly don't think you're helping her cause by being so unwilling to engage rational people in an objective way.  Other than some of the usual suspects, I don't think anyone is being negative just to be negative - I've defended her when I thought it was the right thing to do, praised her tactics when that was warranted.  

    I get it, I do.  In 2008, I commented on another blog (that no longer exists), in which the majority of commenters just hated Clinton, mooned endlessly over Obama, and posted one wild accusation and conspiracy theory after another about Clinton.  In researching their claims in order to respond, I ended up coming to her defense again and again - and went from being lukewarm about her being in the race to being a strong supporter.

    That was 7 years ago; a lot has happened in that time, and I'm less enamored of Clinton now than I was then.  I don't hate her by any stretch, but if we can help shape her and move her more to the left, I don't think that's going to happen if we just cheerlead.

    So, again - it is better that she's come out against the TPP, but neither she nor you has any room to blame people like me for being skeptical - she's done that to herself.


    How does Jonathan Chait (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    Know HRC "never registered her dissent"?  Maybe she was against this all along, but it would not have looked good for her to publicly disagree with her boss, who championed the TPP, nor would it have been good for her own political fortunes, as her boss could have also told her in no uncertain terms that her own run for the presidency would be seriously hampered because he, as head of the Democratic Party, would see to it.

    I don't know if any of that is true or not, but it's just as likely as Chait's position that she never dissented.  He has no idea what really happened.


    The only thing we can go on are her (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    public comments - but I will say that given the frequency with which unnamed or anonymous sources leak all kinds of things, I find it unlikely that there was any private dissent, because it would be exactly the kind of thing that could be used to sow dissent within the administration and set up the Obama v. Hillary boxing match that so excites the media.

    Sure, but (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    There are still always private conversations, without staff present, so his definitivevsyatenent is questionable.  He could have said, "She made no public dissent..." Which again, considering her position at the time, is not surprising. It's also not surprising what she's saying now as she is running for office.  I mean, we're still waiting for Guantanamo to be closed and the Employee Free Choice Act to be signed....

    I have no idea what she REALLY thinks, just as I have no idea what any candidate for president REALLY thinks.  I know what they tell us.  If she is opposed now, does it matter if elected, and she acts on that opposition?  I dunno.


    How many angels can dance on the (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    head of a pin?

    She's a public figure, running for the chance to be elected to a public office; her public comments as Secretary of State are being contrasted with her public comments of the last day or so.  No one's come forward to suggest or state or accuse her of "privately" always being against the TPP.

    You are failing to see the forest for the tree you have your nose pressed up against.


    My nose (2.00 / 2) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    Is just fine, thank you, but (and I say this with all due respect), it seems your head is pressed too closely elsewhere in your anatomy.

    Your quote of Jonathan Chait's belies your own theory - he posited that she NEVER dissented.  My question was:  that's a declarative statement of which he has no idea if it's true or not.  

    Which was the entire point.

    Honestly, I really don't care about TPP - it just isn't on my radar. If HRC is against it now, and that's better for the country, then great.    What I do care about is accurate reporting and accurate representation of facts.  If you don't like her stance now because it's changed, then that's great too.  But just as you feel free to tear apart someone's argument based on what they post, then you should understand when someone points out a weakness in your own posts.


    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    your skepticism Anne, personally I take everything any politician does or says with a huge grain of salt. My "hypervigilance" stems from the fact that many of Hillary's opponents and most of the media always seem to default to the negative no matter what she does.

    It seems to me that Hillary is constantly facing "dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't". There would be howls if she came out for TPP, there would be howls if she still waffled on it, now there are howls when she came out against it.

    Maybe I do overreact to legitimate mild criticisms, but I know for sure that Hillary often faces harsh and unwarranted criticism even when she appears to be doing the right thing.

    We all want the leaders of the Democratic party to "evolve" away from the centrist corporate creatures that that many of them are. We should gladly accept any movement in the "right" direction with guarded optimism rather then kneejerk cynicism.


    Given the options now on TPP, (none / 0) (#163)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:18:40 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton chose the best option.  Your statements about the "dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't" parameters put the matter in practical perspective.

    You refer in your last sentence of the comment that there should be cause for "guarded optimism" ... and, on that, I heartily agree.

    BTW, there will be months to go on this debate; and, its course could prove surprising in some respects.


    I am (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:36:51 PM EST
    actually starting to see this as a somewhat brave act. She has predictably been savaged by the press as a conniving  flip flopper, CNN is beating the dishonesty drum loudly.

    Perhaps she is pandering but she certainly is paying a price. When I step back and look at it I am certain she did the right thing policy wise but I am not sure it was her safest move politically.

    Make no mistake, she will wear this well documented flip-flop around her neck for the duration, the media will make sure of it, her opponents will never forget.

    Just wondering about the political calculus here. Was it worth it to shore up her left flank with a relative handful of voters who are only important in the primaries?


    Actually, I don't think most people (none / 0) (#165)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    really paid attention to TPP. Unlike, say, the interest in the Iran situation--where people could get a handle on the "do you want to have an agreement that will allow us to monitor the Iran potential weapon matter so that we can control a bit more the timing of getting the bomb" etc--a country that we've had a history with and a dynamic that had been discussed for years ... unlike that, the breadth and vagueness and goals of the TPP may well elude most citizens.  In fact, where there is moderate to strong interest it is with the more liberal voters and with the unions.  The latter, of course, recall only too well the negative job displacement effects for which they paid a price.

    So ... it seems to me that it is not unexpected for the cable programs to rant a bit.  Think about the outcome, tho: HRC, previously in the direct employ of the President, was as supportive as she could be in the early stages; and, a lot has transpired since 2012--not the least of which is her reflection about and consideration of the ongoing currency manipulation issues together with no further showing that American workers will be helped by the TPP approach.  The unions and the workers may well appreciate her ultimate decision to stand with them.  

    Two side notes:  (1) Because I couldn't say in a sentence or two or three why TPP would be good for the average America--not mega language, but down-to-earth language--I asked husband this a.m. if he could enlighten me.  Other than the good-for-business-trade-and-the-globe in sweeping terms, he couldn't say.  The point is that the public doesn't know or hasn't been given a memorable reason to support it; and, with that, it doesn't matter how much cable whines IF those voting agree with her and the fact that she listened to the people (and not the bosses.)  (2) For the foreseeable future, the Repub troubles--and how their troubles become everyone's troubles if we don't get a budget or debt ceiling increase because the Repubs have no leadership--will capture the headlines and much more.  By the time people refocus, the news will have aged ... and, as we do in America, it will be on to the next "issue."

    As this evening settled, her decision seems right on point.  (A quick self-selecting Denver Post poll of a few thousand shows a 2 to 1 split against TPP today.)


    I think you (none / 0) (#147)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    may have missed my point.

    This is part of her statement announcing her position:

    As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.

    As I explained above, her statement contains two qualifiers:
    "as of today", and she opposes what she has, "learned about it".

    To me, that hardly represents any kind of horse, let alone a gift horse.

    "As of today" leaves me to question about "as of tomorrow".
    And who knows what she has "learned about it" that she couldn't have known or didn't know in June.

    For you, maybe this is good enough.

    For me, her opposition is a qualified one and a malleable one, depending on what she might "learn" in the future.


    My goodness (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:59:22 AM EST
    I hope that if new information came out. 'As if tomorrow" on any issue, she, and all politicians would be willing to asses their positions and change their minds if need be.

    Republicans certainly don't seem to be burdened by this, though.


    Not true... (none / 0) (#157)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    Trump, for example, changed his position re: abortion rights for women.

    Look: If someone were selling you a car and said something like as of today I think it's a good car based on what I learned so far...

    Would you buy the car?