Thursday, December 10, 2015

Hillary News & Views 12.10: A Partisan Pitch, a Socialist Feminist, and Executive Action

Today's Hillary News & Views begins with Clinton's partisan pitch for her election.

Politico reports:
Hillary Clinton made an emphatically partisan pitch at a town hall outside Des Moines on Wednesday: instead of outlining her own policy proposals in granular detail as she often does in these settings, she asked the crowd to give her their votes to show Republicans their positions carry consequences at the polls.
“Get me elected so that, No. 1, Republicans will realize it doesn’t help them, when they run for president, to be against immigration reform,” Clinton said at her second town hall of the day here, after a man in the audience asked for her views on immigration reform. “They will begin to understand that this is a political issue that has real consequences for their White House hopes.
“I would like to keep talking about this in very emotional terms,” the Democratic front-runner and former secretary of state said of immigration, “but it also has to be political. We’ve got to convince the Republicans their position is going to cost them something. And the best way I know to do that is to elect a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president.”
“Politics is everywhere,” Clinton responded. “Electoral politics is an extension of how we interact with one another in a free country. Electoral politics is how we make decisions as communities and as a country."
With emotion in her voice, she fired back, “If you want to be left out, fine, just don’t complain about anything that you’ve lost your right to.”
Clinton added that “the best way that you can help to shape that future is by really turning out and voting, and sending a message that all the forces of the status quo and everyone who doesn’t want people in this country to see their incomes rise, and their opportunities grow again, send them a message, we’re not going to be fooled.”

Writing for The Nation, socialist feminist Suzanna Danuta Walters explains why she’s supporting Hillary Clinton for president:
Shattering glass ceilings can have broad and rippling consequences. The election of Obama did not usher in an era of “post-racial” accord. However, it brought to the surface the enduring power of racial animus and the equally enduring struggles against it. The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, may have come into being without his presidency, but surely the very fact of this man, with this history, with this body, with this skin in the (very, very) White House opens up space for discussions, debates, movements that are critically important. Obama took it upon himself to explicitly defend the work of Black Lives Matter and school the nation on police violence during an October White House forum on criminal justice where he insisted that “it’s real and there’s a history behind it and we have to take it seriously.” His earlier comments, after the murder of Trayvon Martin, that “this could have been me 35 years ago,” may not have sparked the growing movement against racist police violence, but it surely did give it legitimacy and official voice.
This could happen with Hillary. No, the stalled revolution for gender equity won’t be won by simply installing a woman in the White House. But it may help animate conversation, instill fierce female pride, and inspire young girls the world over. With our campuses roiled in debates about how to address rampant sexual assault and our reproductive lives seemingly constantly in need of controlling by over-reaching politicians; with our wages still unequal, our domestic labor undervalued and childcare still too expensive; and with our political representation still woefully disproportionate to our population, the effects of having a woman in that very male White House may just trigger some needed discussion and stir social movements.
Hillary may not be the (radical, intersectional) feminist that activists fantasize about seeing in power, but she’s some kind of a feminist for sure and would no doubt foreground the centrality of gender equity to social justice in ways we have not seen at a national level. While Bernie’s redistributive economic policies might—in the long run—aid women more than Hillary’s more conservative ones, it is unlikely that most of them would ever make their way through a Congress beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests. And it is not at all clear to me that a gridlocked leftist vision would be better for women than the value-added of actually having a woman (with an agenda that shares much in common with this vision)—after all these years—in the Oval Office. Hillary in office will not usher in some profound realignment of US priorities and politics. But no mainstream, electable candidate is likely to do that in any case (see Obama’s legacy on that if you have any doubts). But she just might help us remember that “feminist” is not an epithet but a badge of honor.
Clinton once again promises to use executive action to advance her agenda, should Congress remain in GOP hands, this time for corporate reform. 

Wall Street Journal reports:
On Wednesday, the Democratic front-runner pitched ideas to crack down on corporate inversions, maneuvers that shift companies’ legal addresses outside of the U.S. to lower tax bills. If Congress won’t help shut them down, she said, she would use regulations to stop companies from gaming the system.
“This is not only about fairness. This is about patriotism,” she said at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa. “If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.” 
It was the third major policy area where she vowed executive action, all but anticipating that Congress, which is likely to remain at least partly controlled by Republicans, wouldn’t back her proposals. In each case, she would go beyond what the Obama administration has done.
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t use powers that come with the Oval Office. “Her first preference will always be to seek to work with Congress,” he said. “But where progress has stalled and there is clear legal authority for the president to act, she will not hesitate to do so.”
Former Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer, who helped craft Mr. Obama’s strategy on executive action, said Mrs. Clinton is taking the right approach. “At a time of massive congressional gridlock, it’s incumbent on candidates to make it clear how they would achieve their agenda, and a legislative-only approach would not be seen as credible to the voters or the press covering the campaign,” he said.
Clinton is imploring the Supreme Court to uphold the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Talking Points Memo reports:
"In the Supreme Court yesterday, parties challenging Texas’ Senate apportionment plan insisted that political representation in our democracy should be based on eligible voters, instead of total population," Clinton said in a statement. "This change would mean that many in America, including children and non-citizen residents, would no longer be counted for purposes of representation in every state in the country."
"Such measures are an insult to the millions of Americans who have fought throughout our history for our country to achieve equality and justice for all people," she continued. "The Supreme Court should protect political equality and turn away this harmful and reckless attempt to write off so many."
In the case, Evenwel v. Abbott, the challengers argue that Texas' redistricting plan using total population is unconstitutional, suggesting that the state instead use citizens or those eligible to vote to determine electoral districts. A decision in favor of the challengers could impact areas with large numbers of undocumented immigrants and convicted felons.
A couple of highlights from Twitter.

Slamming Donald Trump:
All of the GOP candidates are anti-Muslim:
Praising the Republicans for their consistency:
Support for Every Student Succeeds Act:

1 comment: