Hillary to Issue Climate Change Plan

Here's the important news about Hillary Clinton this week:

Here's what desperate Republicans care about: emails and Benghazi.

Here's what the media cares about: Anything that portrays Hillary in a negative light. And the man with straw hair. The attention his every comment brings is absurd.

< About that "classified" info in the Clinton e-mails | Tsarnaev Moved from USP to Supermax >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NY $15 fast food wage (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    I'll be honest - I don't get it.  For the life of me I don't understand why they singled out one industry vs. just raising the minimum wage.  It makes no sense to me.  Do other industries require a lower wage?  Does retail?  Is there some basis for it other than what seems like pure political pandering because these people were the loudest?  What's to stop businesses from cutting out fast food entirely in favor of cheaper industries?

    Also, NY seems like exhibit A for a place where a localized min wage makes the most sense. You could have a $20 min wage in NYC and you'd still have bodegas and stores and food galore.  But you do that in Syracuse and the stores would probably just up and leave.  And yes, they are raising the $15 min wage incrementally (NYC first, rest of the state later).  And I would be ok with a $15 min wage nationally.  But I don't think a $15 min wage locally in upstate NY is going to help them much.  And I don't see why it's tied to NYC min wage at all.  NYC min wage doesn't go up when the rest of NY state wage does.

    It all just feels really poorly thought out, and could easily create the conditions that push out a certain industry in places, and be used to fight future increases in min wage.

    I wonder about that too (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    perhaps because of a couple of things.  It's probably the biggest employer outside WalMart and it's a more or less contained industry.   Easier to organize.

    I'm sure the hope is if that happens others will follow.

    True?  Who knows.  It's a start.


    It's also been shown (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    that fast food places could do this with tiny increases in prices.

    ok... but (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    couldn't you say the same for retail?

    And line cooks are notoriously underpaid.  That will probably increase prices more.  But I don't see that being a valid reason to grossly underpay your workers.


    not sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:52:44 AM EST
      why it would be singled out relative to other large corporate employers who rely on minimum wage workers.

       I don't think that is what Clinton is doing. I think she just stated her position on a specific proposal by others that is on the table. supporting that does not necessarily imply that she favors such a distinction.


    yea (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    I didn't mean this as something specific to Clinton, who I imagine is just "supporting an increase in wages".  Just questioning the thought process by those who created it.

    I guess in a sense it's a government endorsement of a kind of unionization.  And again - I'm not opposed to increasing the min wage.  I'm just confused as to how/why they came up with this particular plan, and I'm worried it could backfire.  What's included in fast food anyway?  Restaurants?  Because you might have a lot of (legitimately) angry cooks if they aren't.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:17:39 AM EST
     it's purely political. I'm not one who would doubt the capacity of politicians to pander for purely political reasons.

      But there could be (I don't have enough info  to say there "are") be valid economic reasons to focus on that sector. Maybe, "fast food" (I too am not how broad the definition may be for purposes of the proposal) has higher profit margins and/or lower labor costs in relation to value of sales and net profit than other employers.

      Maybe, it's that in NYC there is a disparity more pronounced than in other places between "fast food" min. wage employment and such employment in other occupations.

       Maybe, NYC is also a bit different because its retail is not as dominated by megachains as most of the country and far more people in that sector work for small independent employers for whom a wage increase would be difficult.

      There could well be other things worthy of consideration too. Just ease of implementation and enforcement is not an invalid reason sometimes.

      I'm not saying any of that is the case because I just don't know but there could be sound (but still debatable) reasons


    From the NYT link: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday will use a speech focused on growing the economy to endorse a $15-an-hour minimum wage proposal for fast-food workers recommended by a New York panel, a person briefed on her plans said.

    The remarks from Mrs. Clinton will come in the city where the fast-food workers' labor effort first started several years ago. A panel created by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Wednesday recommended the change; the increase will occur faster in New York City than other parts of the state because of the higher cost of living there.

    So, it appears her endorsement is arising out of the recommendations of a NY-based panel.

    Her views on raising the minimum wage nationwide are much more nuanced, couched in terms of agreeing the wage needs to be higher, but not committing to a specific target rate.


    At this point, given its burgeoning ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    ... email story fiasco, I've come to the conclusion that the New York Times can really no longer be trusted to cover Mrs. Clinton's campaign either fairly or accurately. Kurt Eichenwald nailed it in Newsweek:

    "Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times [email] story was neither."



    Trump is a "dumbdumb" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    says Scott Walker.  And, then, Trump, as he is known to do, had something to say about Walker.   He hit Walker with some truths: r:  "The state (Wi) is doing terribly,"  "it is in turmoil,"  "roads are a disaster, Wi is borrowing like crazy, the projected $1 billion surplus turns out to be a $2.2 billion deficit, schools are a disaster, since there is no money....."   A showing of reality by Trump. And, Trump is moving up on Walker in those right wing caucuses in Iowa.   And, Trump as not even tasted any of those required deep fried butter sticks.

    Trump is doing the Dem dirty work (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    It's amazing.  Scott Walker is Exhibit "B" for GOP economic policy failure (Kansas takes the #1 spot).  I can't believe Trump is calling him out on it - sort of.

    Wisconsin is a snowbelt state; the roads (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    are on a downward spiral.  Yearly freeze/thaw cycles destroy the roads.  De-industrialization results in lower tax revenues to do the necessary road maintenance and replacement.

    Michigan, where I live, is in the same fix.  Pols have to lie about it because few people want to face the truth.  They kick the can, defer maintenance - which makes things worse.  They make fantastic promises.  The people are so freakin' desperate they'll believe anything.  Promise 'em anything; promise them growth, the great growth hope...


    Very disappointed that Hillary today... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by magster on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    ... didn't take a position on Keystone XL.

    The man with (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    straw hair? I guess that would be The Donald? He gets attention because he's like watching a train wreck. You want to not listen and you want to look away but yet you just can't.

    He gets attention (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 07:25:24 PM EST
    because he's the frontrunner.

    He gets attention in the same way (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    the screaming toddler having a meltdown in the grocery store does, and just like a toddler, he's going to keep it up as long as he keeps getting the attention.

    He's going to crash eventually.  Either he will cross a line no one will be able to follow him over, or the dirt will start leaking out and the same people fueling his rise will thrill at his demise.

    In the process of trying to climb up and over the backs of his fellow contenders, he's managing to expose their flaws and weaknesses, so that when he does eventually crash, those left standing will be all the weaker.

    It's part Shakespearean tragedy, part theater of the absurd, part slapstick comedy, and when you consider that the end result is going to be a new president, it's enough to make a person despair for the future, really.

    If no one paid any attention to Donald Trump, he'd go out with a whimper.


    I hate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:16:26 AM EST
    to tell you but the people fueling his rise are impervious to any type of attack or facts about the Donald. I mean if the stuff he's said already has not been enough to take him down thing nothing will.

    Probably what is going to happen is that he's going to max out on people this appeals to in the GOP. It looks like his max is about 40% of the primary voters. So sooner or later when it drops down to two candidates somebody will be beating him regularly in primaries.

    However this could go on a long time.


    And may he remain the frontrunner :-) (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    So the GOP can reap what they sowed.

    Huckabee (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    tried to grab a headline with an attention grabbing comment today while talking about the President:

    "It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."


    He scored one (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:28:39 AM EST
    for the president.   All this stuff just make him look like the grownup

    True (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    but even before he was the front runner he was getting a ton of attention.

    I can and do look away (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    and since I don't watch cable news often, I just hear it in the car, I change the channel when they talk about him.

    I liked him on Celebrity Apprentice, but that's where he belongs. On a reality show, not in public office.


    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:10:13 AM EST
    running for president in this country has become a two year reality show.

    The Second Coming Of Reagan

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre is HUGE;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The tea-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Donald is at hand.
    The Donald! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Main Stream Media
    Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of Las Vegas
    A shape with mans body and the head of a lion,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its short fingers, while all about it
    Reel shadows of the indignant beltway media.
    The darkness drops again; but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by an Apprentice,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Washington to be born?

    with apologies to Yeats


    Doubt Yeats would be offended, (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    he, himself, was a senator in Ireland, and liked the occult.  Not that Trump is of the table-raising spirits, but he is a mystery of sorts. Maybe, even a magician of sorts.   He manages to capture a good share of the Republican base with his appalling qualities.  Although, I believe we see his trick.  WE know the Republican base.

    The big question to his show : is it reality or a summertime frolic?  And, is it different from the clown car mechanics of 2012?  True, all number of weirdos were number ones--for awhile.  They took turns for a few weeks each.  And, then after looking high and low, they went low--with Romney.  He was their man, after all.  They liked the idea of Rafalca, car elevators and Swiss bank accounts.

    But, is it the same this time around.  I do not think so.  The clown car is loaded--some, rather than Romney's dog, must be strapped to the roof.  When Trump says some despicable thing, he is exalted. And, copied and one-uped.   If Trump falls  (how can he stumble more) where is the Romney this time?  

     The "smart one" Jeb! who wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, as we know it, Walker? Cruz? Huckabee? Paul?  Rubio?  Trump, after holding up in the mirror top poll results will get the stay-in bug.  All Republicans will fall in, and scramble for number two. I will go for Trump/Kasich as the winger ticket. Entertaining meets Boring, Trump and Lump.


    It is a remarkable (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    and at least to me a fascinating thing to watch.  The main difference between Donald and the whack-a-mole poll leaders of 2012 is none of them could self finance.   The reason a candidate usually disappears is money.  Or the lack of it.   It's clear the establishment is beginning to understand that Donald is not those people.  Ignoring him and hoping he will go away is not a realistic option.  When I want to know what the DC establishment thinks I watch morning Joe.   Trumps coverage has undergone a not so subtle change.   They still cluck their tongues but they are beginning to accept that he is not going away.
    I think it's possible he could win the nomination.  Never thought I would say that.   It's still very improbable but I no longer think it's impossible.

    Agreed. That is (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    where I am on Trump's viability.  He does not need a billionaire sugar daddy, he is one.  Don't watch Morning Joe, but appreciate your calibration of his barometer.  

    There is (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    way more to this then just the money. Trump has surged in the polls, essentially without spending a dime.

    Last cycles circus of pop up leaders was mostly a bunch of relatively unknowns, when the spotlight shone upon them their flaws were exposed or the simply withered.

    Trump is been anything but unknown and he absolutely will not wither in the spotlight, as pretty much everybody expected.The Donald's media savvy, his wheeler dealer persona and political opportunism has enabled him to sell his bluster to the rubes.

    Trumps continued success does not make any sense looking from the from the top down. Start looking at it the from the rubes side of the fence and it starts to make a little more sense. Just turn your IQ down to around 90 and you too will believe that a self promoting real estate hustler would make a good president.


    I have to admit (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    i am transfixed by a politician who is not filtered, managed and poll tested.

    And I am about as far from his potential fan base as you can get.  


    Not (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    transfixed by the man, but fascinated by the movement. When Trump opens his piehole to release another blast of toxic hot air, you can look down his craw and catch a glimpse of the Republican ID, disgusting I know, but know your enemy and all that.

    He's bullworth (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:01:32 PM EST
    who's come to save the GOP.

    I have to admit his schtick is interesting. And he manages to keep himself interesting

    I laugh at the pearl clutches inside the beltway. I understand the GOP base in that regard. It kind of like their tsk tsking of Hillary and the email and how the "optics" aren't good. The fact that Trump enrages these same people makes me like watching him simply because he makes their head spin.


    I have to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    when people are going to get tired of his schtick. I find it amusing at the moment, but in a couple months?

    The GOP base? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    Probably never.

    So do I. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 26, 2015 at 11:32:54 PM EST
    The man is repulsive.

    Yes, he is, but (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:43:29 PM EST
    from a political point of view, successful beyond most people's imagination.

    The reason the Trump phenomenon is so interesting to me is because it underlines a point I've been making for years.

    When the intelligentsia was mocking George Bush's appeal, and pointing to his obvious lack of credentials, an interesting insight cropped up. I'm sure everyone remembers, and, predictably mocked the, "who would you rather have a beer with," meme. And, yet, very few of the political geniuses, and "consultants," understood the rock-solid value of that tid-bit.

    In business, it is well known that, "people will buy from people they like." Liking someone, very often will trump accepted traits like, price, quality, appearance, etc. It's just that simple, and, should be, that obvious.

    And, enjoying the thought of "having a beer with," or, being drawn to someone who, "tells it like it is," shouldn't surprise anyone.

    What I'm really getting to here is, the tremendous success, and, popularity Trump is enjoying (for now, at least) should put to bed the ridiculous notion, and, accepted "wisdom," that Obama's skillful use of the "Bully Pulpit," would have been useless in light of the dogged, relentless assault by the Right Wing.

    Just try to imagine, if Obama, immediately after his election, with such momentum behind him, with such a groundswell of public support, and, with such a huge majority of the public just dying to support the one who made, "change," his battle-cry, If he had spoken to the American people in a manner somewhat similar to Trump's outspokenness today, yeah, just imagine.

    I believe the Republican's "finger in the wind" would've twisted right off their hands and, their rock-solid , unchangeable ideas, would've crumbled like a pile of bricks at a demolition site.

    Universal health care, women's rights, job erupting infrastructure boom, education for all, and on, and on, and on. They would have been fighting each other to get out front, and position themselves as having wanted all those progressive things all along.

    Cause, if there's one thing a politician worships more than god, family, and health, it's being elected. Maybe, it's all a pipe dream, but, the tragedy is not that we didn't get all those needed things; it's that we didn't try, we didn't try at a time in my life when the public stood united in saying, "The door's open Mr. President, we did our jobs, now, show us what you've got."



    Nonsense (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    Those who love Donald, like him for what he is. And BHO was so popular in 2008 for being what he was-having an anti-Dubya and anti-Donald kind of personality.

    BHO and Donald's personality types appeal to very different kinds of people. The kind of people that like Donald or Dubya did not get BHO elected. They voted for the other candidate.

    You are a very confused person, NYShooter. You seem to be the type that would divorce a spouse because you hated everything about her, then find another who was exactly the opposite personality of the ex and after the second marriage tell the current spouse to show the personality traits of the ex because the ex had a personality that was liked by some people.


    That doesn't (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    mean that Obama could not have used the bully pulpit to get his message across.

    I don't think it's nonsense at all (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    If he were a different kind of person and not an intelligent but reticent-to-a-fault, fairly typical corporate lawyer, Obama could've successfully adopted King's approach, and while commanding the Bully Pulpit made those policy issues moral issues, which they ultimately are anyway.



    I agree insofar (none / 0) (#42)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:03:16 AM EST
     as "likeability," and trust as well, are very important considerations, I think your analysis founders when we step back and that:

     a) Trump is only get6ting the support of at best 1/4 of the GOP electorate which is somewhere around 10% of the total electorate.

     b) he also has the highest negative tatings of any candidate.

      So, would Obama not have risked turning his numbers into ones similar to Trump's if he adopted Trump's style to promote his agenda?


    There is no way on God's green earth (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    that Obama - a black man - could have won the WH being as belligerent and arrogant as Trump.

    And while I would have preferred that he be less conciliatory toward the GOP and not conceded so much to them in an effort to be bipartisan, I don't think he'd have had any more success being a Trump-style a-hole.


    I;m still convinced (none / 0) (#44)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:50:42 AM EST
     that there is no way a white man, including Trump, can get elected behaving this way. A black man couldn't possibly  get elected even representative from all but, maybe, a handful of very minority dense districts.

    He can't get elected President (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 07:24:17 PM EST
    but he might get the Republican nomination.

    And, you interpreted my post (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 04:53:50 AM EST
    as suggesting Obama should have behaved as, "belligerent and arrogant as Trump?"



    You think Trump is being "outspoken;" (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:50:25 AM EST
    I think he's generally being "belligerent and arrogant."

    You said this (my emphasis):

    If he had spoken to the American people in a manner somewhat similar to Trump's outspokenness today, yeah, just imagine.

    A person doesn't have to be an a$$hole to be a leader, but he does have to believe in and actually want to attain the goals the people voted him into office to accomplish.  Obama's problem wasn't that he didn't act like Trump, it was that he was all about consensus and bipartisanship and working together - too bad it was with a GOP happy to take whatever he'd give them - and he gave them way too much, way too many times - but firm in their commitment to not give him anything in return.  

    Trump is not a leader, he's a bully.  He likes telling people what to do and watching them hop to it.  Small problem: Washington doesn't work that way, in case you haven't noticed.  

    If Obama had come in hot like Trump, he'd have been handed his a$$, been branded an angry black man, and maybe doesn't get a second term.  You can't make people be someone and something they aren't, and confrontation and belligerence are not in Obama's wheelhouse.

    The time for "if only" has passed.  


    She is following, not leading (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    Say something genuinely politically imaginative, then I'll take her seriously. Until then she is the single most corporate shill the Dems can nominate of, well, the stinking two they have. Shouldn't the progressives, if you really think about it, be presenting more candidates than TWO???

    I think so.


    Nothing (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    is keeping anybody from running other than fear of losing.

    You pretty much said the same thing about ... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    ... Gov. Jerry Brown, who ignored your criticism and proceeded to pull California out of the very dire fiscal circumstances in which it was mired.

    Perhaps the one who really needs to use his or her imagination is you, because the active pursuit of political fantasies is not leadership.



    Jerry Brown (none / 0) (#37)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    His health is OK, he is a leader, and he has no baggage.  Maybe he should run for a term as president.

    A climate change plan that is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    neutral on Keystone XL in particular and fracking in general doesn't seem like much of a plan.