Our nation only has need to import commodities that we cannot grow or extract. Any other class of import is unnecessary and only weakens the nation.

Rebuilding the manufacturing base is the only way to assure a strong nation on all fronts.

Without doing this fundamental strengthening of our communities we will fade into a second rate power.

If labor and environmental standards are meaningless in trade agreements then there is a six letter word that will guarantee compliance: TARIFF.

I’ve yet to hear Ms. Clinton or, for that matter, Barack Obama address this issue. I really haven’t heard anyone address this issue.

They all talk about job training.

Just what the hell is that? What do you train a 55 year old worker to do when his/her job has been outsourced or the plant that employed him closes up and rebuilds in China?

I’ve been contributing as much as I can to the Edwards campaign on the off chance that an Edwards administration could possibly be convinced to take a realistic approach to our decimated manufacturing base. But I haven’t really heard much from The Edwards campaign on this critical issue.

I watched the KO piece and I liked his little snicker at the end when she obviously dodged his Gore question. She’s very masterful at that.

Every time I hear her speak about her “new” programs, I’m always am astounded that they are the very same programs bush proposes. The.very.same.thing. “American Retirement Accounts”….. we have that; Social Security. Just do it better, will ya. Even the SCHIP “new program”…. we have that; Medicaid. Just modify that to include the children SCHIP would cover. We have the money to do that.

What she wants is more of how we got our Health Scare Industry, which she is almost directly to blame for. Insurance companies should be insurance companies not running our lives, not driving everyone to the doctor and keeping them in a cycle of doctor’s visits for whatever designer illness will drive the stock up of the big pharma’s. I’m sick to death of this scam. Why is everyone so sick? She’s driven the Insurance aspect, and will drive it even bigger than it is.

OKay, do better at administering Social Security, Medicare, and expand Medicaid and stop trying privatize all these essential SERVICES. We already pay for them. Now, they argue these programs are out of money to scare us into thinking we need a NEW program, which will also be mismanaged and robbed to fund …. killing people for oil and arms deals.

Which is of course at the heart of everything: Iraq. Hillary Clinton was for the war then, she is now, and she will be. No matter how she spins her voting record, she is for the war. Period. She’s a calculating, ruthless, shrewd, manipulative pro-war candidate on the same course as bush and the neocons. There’s no mistake on that.

I’m sorry, Scarecrow, but what basic facts suggest that she would be a formidable candidate?

I say again; the reason the democrats are in a position to make some huge political gains two Novembers from now, is a four-letter-word:

Iraq.

And I would respectfully ask you to tell us how you think a politician who doesn’t even think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, is going to be a “formidable candidate”.

THAT is a powerful argument.

Could she even answer the question, “Are we safer for having overthrown Saddam Hussein?”

Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster and Hillary doesn’t seem to recognize that. So, how is she qualified to be president?

…
This, of course, brings us to a point of extreme agreement–Iraq. The failure of Obama and Edwards to stake a clear position on ending the occupation is much more disappointing to me than anything Clinton has said.

I heard Obama speak on C-SPAN yesterday and his position on Iraq sounded almost verbatim the same as Edwards. They both want all combat troops out, to be kept in Kuwait or somewhere else nearby, except for those needed to defend the embassy.

What’s not clear about that?

…
By all accounts, left and right, she has been a superb Senator and is well-liked in that body.

That’s debatable.

Do you support her vote for the flag burning bill or her vote for the Iraq war or her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment?

…
On a broader policy note, let’s all agree that any one of the Democratic candidates would be a thousand times better than Bush and Cheney. Let’s agree that we will devote our energies and rhetorical skills to pushing the candidate we think would be best out of the democratic group.

Absolutely!

Most importantly, let’s agree that it is atavistic to try to tear other Democratic candidates down.

If we don’t fight it out now we might be shocked by the loss of our candidate in the general election campaign.

Whichever candidate can win this knock-down drag-out primary should breeze through the general election.

But, worst would be to let Hillary win by default of being the most well-known person. That’s certainly no way to pick a president.

This process will probably be over in a few short months, and when that happens many will regret their attacks as they used against the Democratic candidate by her enemies.

Are you saying it’s unfair to disclose a candidate’s statements, votes and policy positions and to compare them to other candidates or other optional possibilities?

What has been unfair about our criticisms of Hillary? Isn’t she up to a good fight? Is she too weak to take it?

John Edwards for president — Strong Leadership for America

Agreed; and that includes sucking up to the republicans to the point that she won’t condemn the decision to invade Iraq, and won’t apologize for her support of that decision.

And for anyone thinks her handcuffing herself on going after bush and the GOP on Iraq in the general election is doing “what has to be done to get elected”, then I’d like to sell them a political candidate, cheap.

She cannot be elected, and for the severalnth time, no one on here has talked about any voting demographics which indicate anything to the contrary.

Her natural constituency, the progressive wing of the party, does not see her as a desirable candidate. Check OUR 2300 votes (which was and excellent Idea to ask for, Jane) and then give some thought to what republicans and independents and conservative democrats will do.

It is a dead lock: if she wins the democratic nomination, the republican turnout will be MUCH larger than if Edwards or Obama is our nominee. And the GOP’rs, as well as the independents, will be snorting fire, to try to keep her out of the white house.

My rule of thumb: If someone says that they cannot ever ever vote for someone like HRC because she wants a war with Iran, plans to continue Bush executive powers, is sold out to corporate interests, they are either a Naderite fool, or more likely, a GOP troll.

Then you would be wrong. I never supported Nader. I supported Jerry Brown and Ross Perot, never voted for Clinton and still don’t like DLC Dems who support corporations before individuals.

BTW, are you saying you support Hillary BECAUSE she might want to go to war with Iran? Bizarre.

I believe in a civil discussion, so calling Hillary opponents GOP trolls is just gauche.

Given the sad state of the GOP in 2008, their only hope for a victory is a split in the Democratic party. They are thinking 1968, when the most active, committed antiwar activists sat out the election, giving the White House to Richard Nixon.

Okay then, so we can count on your vote for John Edwards!

United Democrats for Edwards!

selise @ 136

was kinda hoping that someone would explain to me how clinton’s retirement saving plan was not just a privatization program in disguise. (see my comment at 74)

haven’t seen one. did i miss it?

or does everyone here agree?

“privatization” is typically used to move contributions from Social Security to “private investment accounts.” Democrats opposed this because it is a way of undermining social security — which is an intergenerational social contract that one generation will support the last in its retirement. It was another attack on the broader social contract.

Hillary’s plan does not divert SS dollars/payments to private acounts. She takes additional federal revenues and uses them to supplement individual savings plans, for specified purposes — mostly retirement, but with exceptions for college, buying your first house, or emergencies.

How can you say that using ‘additional federal revenues’ for her savings plan is not stealing monies from Social Security? Social Security monies are taken all the time for general revenue spending. They’re given treasury notes in return. Shouldn’t any ‘additional federal revenues’ be refunded to Social Security to make it whole (a la Al Gore’s lock box)?

A savings plan is consistent with a lot of economists who are concerned about the lack of savings in America.

Sure, Republican economists who want to destroy Social Security by pushing people toward individual savings account (like Bush proposed). They want to put that money (which rightfully belongs in Social Security) into mutual funds to pump up the stock market. Don’t expect it to stay there though. The old pump & dump trick will wring it right out and it’ll fall right into the pockets of Wall Street operators.

Hillary is ever so willing to help the Rich and their business interests.

The savings accounts make sense if they earn reasonable return/interest — hence the funds get invested, like contributions to a 401 retirement plan. The federal matching for contributions up to $1000 are designed to encourage individual savings by those less likely to save.

But, if you take that much money and put it into the stock market we have to ask several big questions: will it be invested in America’s corporate infrastructure to build industry or will it just be a big balloon which gets punctured like the dot.com balloon burst in early 2000? Who will steal that money?

You can’t just throw money at the Market. It has to be related to business investment.

A big part of our economy today is how to encourage wealth formation for families as well as the ultra-Rich and corporations. If you can’t sequester that wealth the retail industry will just raise their prices and soak it up. It won’t remain separate from your pocket money. Also, if you can’t protect it from pump & dump schemes in the Stock & Bond Markets, then it just gets stolen by market operators.

If we want people to have wealth we can build with the government (health care reform, infrastructure, minimum wage, help unions, better international trade deals, etc.) and we can try to find ways to let people build personal wealth that doesn’t get stolen (as happened with homes and crazy mortgages).

John Edwards always puts individuals first, so I trust his world view more than Hillary’s.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 102

I dislike the term “Hillary haters”. That assumes facts which are not necessarily in evidence.

Several in this thread have called her “evil” and “vile” – that’s not exactly friendly talk. I think some are looking for the “perfect” politician, president and resident saint. Ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t think Hillary is evil or vile. I think she’s a lovely person. She’s smart, well experienced and has put up with a lot of crap from Republicans.

However, that doesn’t qualify her to be president.

I’m looking for someone to solve a lot of very big problems and all her solutions tend to be beneficial to business interests and not individuals. Well, businesses have been benefiting big time for quite a while now and it’s the individuals whose incomes haven’t really risen (in real terms) since about 1980 who are hurting. Her solutions don’t interest me.

I’m voting for John Edwards.

Scarecrow,

That’s what I’m saying!! She does what has to be done to get elected. After elected, the real Hillary will emerge and take us out of this mess that Bush created. With this KO interview , she is already responding to our concerns.

Phyllis

It all depends upon what you mean by “take us out of this mess”. If you only mean ‘out of Iraq’, then she very well might do that the same way Obama or Edwards would. But, she has also said we need to be prepared for ‘the next war’. Just how belligerent does she need to make her political rhetoric toward Iran? Is it productive or destructive? Is it honest and sincere or just weak posturing?

As for other aspects of what Bush has done: the divisiveness of politics will remain as the Republicans feel they can’t win elections by competing head-up on issues with democrats — they’ll make it divisive if they have to pretend to be Attila the Hun to stir up anti-Dem hatred among their electorate; the use of deficit spending will return as soon as a Republican Congress or president returns — it’s their way of holding government down in the bathtub, so liberals can’t do anything with it; the over-use of the military will return with Repubs as that’s their tool to waste money. What’s Hillary’s solution? Pay off the debt? What does that do in the long run? Republicans can always spend more in the future!

What we need are large structural changes which Republicans can’t wipe away in just 4 years of wasteful spending.

We need an increase in the minimum wage. Will Hillary do that?

We need help for homeowners and their crazy mortgages. All Hillary offered was for lenders.

We need improved infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.) and I think Hillary will go for that because businesses will benefit. Other Dems would do that too.

We need to fix New Orleans. I haven’t heard Hillary on it, but I know Edwards wants to do it.

We need health care reform. Hillary said, wait til the second term. Edwards said within the first month he’d have a bill in Congress.

We need retirement systems reform to protect people from bankrupt companies. It’s hard to say which support that, but I can’t see Hillary doing anything like that since it would pinch businesses.

We need fair trade international deals. Would Hillary really change NAFTA, CAFTA or other deals to hinder businesses? I feel certain the more lefty Dems (like Edwards, Dodd or Kucinich) would seek to protect workers and improve international worker safety and environmental safety laws within the international trade deals.

In all these areas Edwards continually talks about people while Hillary talks about business interests. I’ll vote for Edwards.