She is saying that they have to work on the bill to make sure it passes. That suggests that there are going to be changes. But the changes have to get more DEMOCRATS on board and hope that she can retain enough Republicans to get the damn thing passed.
She is extending more of an olive branch and calling on the better angels of the Republicans nature to prevent further layoffs.
Come together at The Confluence

I really did not expect her to get this right. Only a few months ago she was talking about bringing in Greenspan and Rubin for Gwad sakes to solve the mortgage crisis.

Bernie Sanders for President!

It was unreasonable to put her up there in the first place, and clearly untenable now. Hillary Clinton has always been a dominantly center-right politician, with liberal leanings only on some narrow matters. It was intriguing to watch her during the primary, when it appeared she might take a more generally Progressive position, but since the nomination was settled she has tacked back to her long-standing center-right position of comfort and remained there. A disappointment, but there you go; seldom justified to pin much hope on career politicians.

The differences between her and Barack Obama on policy are few and very slim, and because of that I was never discomfited in him as the Party choice instead of her; 6.2 of one, near a half-dozen of the other as far as I’m concerned. Neither is a Progressive; they couldn’t either of them have won the primary much less be elected if they were.

Like most national politicians, Senators especially, Hillary is enormously dependent on money from big individual donors and the corporations they control. She and Bill are dependent on them for the donations that flow into his Foundation, for the lucrative speaking fees he gets, and for the highly profitable promotion and distribution of their books. She will need them as well if she ever hopes to recoup the $20+ Million in loans still outstanding from her presidential campaign, and for financial support in any future political campaigns.

As to the notion that she is controlled by Obama, I rather think not; it is only that her interests and his happen to coincide. Neither of them can succeed as politicians without financial backing from the Corporatist Power Elite. The only difference between the two of them and the Republicans is that the Corporatists who back the Democratic Party are a faction that believes in a form of Benign Despotism, that allowing the lower classes to prosper slightly is the best way to perpetuate their own wealth and power. In Corporatist America, that is as much as we can immediately hope for.

Finally, let me say I find the notion that Hillary is somehow unwillingly subservient to Obama or their Corporatist masters to be extremely degrading. She has made her choices, of her own free will and, intelligent as she is, in full cognizance of their meaning and consequence. However much one may disagree with those choices, and in this case I think they are despicable, she is at least due the respect of being seen as a strong and independent actor.

While she is required to follow certain conventions in order to be United States Senator from New York, no one is forcing her into that role; to claim that she must do this or that, to speculate that she has been threatened and cowed into submission, diminishes her as a person, as a woman and as the strong feminist she is. Agree or disagree with her policies and decisions, it should be done within the context of treating her as an autonomous human being who is responsible for and has ownership of her own actions; she is due at least that much respect.

that she voted for FISA after she settled back to her "comfort zone", which is not a bad litmus test. Just saying.

Plus, talk about degrading, "settled back to her comfort zone", as if the primary race was an event that "happened" and had no impact on her development as a human being or politician. I think she is due enough respect to think that was a life-changing event and not just a blip in a "comfort zone".

Who knows why she is doing what she is doing? In fact, we barely even know WHAT she is doing, let alone WHY. This statement is couched in very safe language (as regards Dem "leaders").

Maybe some have Hillary on a pedestal, it's cool to take her off the same time Saint Obama is taken off. Maybe some (like myself) only had hope she was a Democrat without qualification (unlike so many you-know-whos). Anyway, if not her it would be nice to know who is acting like a Democrat and who is acting like a bought and paid for stooge of Pelosi-Reid.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

She didn't only drop HOLC like she never knew it, but seems to have gone out of her way to hit on all of the Village talking points and script (i.e. doing nothing is not an option, bipartisanship, "now, now, now" etc...) I can not in good conscience defend her on this when I'm not going to defend others on this very same stance. She's essentially saying everything that her party's presidential nominee is saying, she's not even fighint for a HOLC, anymore.

Whatever, Hillary. I guess the only person looking out for my interest is my Republican congressman. *sigh* This is hardly the time to be getting along to get along. Is there no real leadership in crisis, anymore?

she voted against it, just like she promised.

HRC has always been one of Them. people who sometime say and do the right thing, but ultimately belong in the camp of "but when my Masters tell me, I will follow their orders."

lessee. what was i supposed to believe about HRC, during her Feburary Progressive period? that she would be "better" on issues like health care, women's rights, children's rights, cleaning up corruption, blabbity blabbity, our very own Joan of Arc.

well, here's the sad truth: open up the treasury to the Big 5 banking gangs houses on Wall St, and *none* of those priorities of "hers" are any longer possible to address via government and policy. because there won't be any money left, nor many institutions or nations willing to lend us money, and the increasing burden of servicing additional trillions of debt from this and the rest of bush's messes = NO MONEY FOR YOU, SUCKERS!!!1!

now, in truth, i'm not really that "disappointed" with HRC for this, as others have pointed out her current job and hubby's foundation and celebrity future depend on a steady stream of their money. i haven't seen anyone chart out exactly how much money "wall st" brings into the NY state gov't coffers via taxation, nor what percentage of the employment pool is directly tied to Wall St, but i'd be interested in seeing them. b/c it seems to me that while she "serves her constituents" by supporting the bailout, she fucks over a goodly number of non-Wall st new yorkers as well as the rest of us.

i guess what i'm saying that i never believed in HRC's newfound "progressivism," and in this act she proves me right. any honest or compassionate progressive would fight, and fight, and fight, for the HOLC plan and better, not just go thru the motions in anticipation of coming back to progressives for support at a later time during another campaign. cause that's all her HOLC plan was for: to impress people at places like this blog and put a penny in the piggybank for future campaigning. she always was, in truth, going to come out in favor of giving unregulate trillions to her friends, and it was, at least for me, very easy to perceive that.

Can we take Saint Hillary down off her pedestal now?

As long as we don't stick Obama up on one... He's never told me what I want to hear.

Let's put Dennis up. Might make him taller and give him the clout to do what he always claims he will.

Uh huh.

I'd like to let it be known that I never supported Hillary because I believed her to be anything other than a politician. In fact, I've said many times that Hillary is a politician, and that my anger with Obama was that he pretended to be everything but a politician. So, this "Saint Hillary" archetype never factored into my support of her candidacy. If you're looking for folks to have that view of her, perhaps you'd be much better served at some extreme PUMA website. It's not disappointing because it's Hillary, it's disappointing because this is obviously something that doesn't need to be passed in this form. Tweaking this bill is not going to make it better because the very focus of its is inherently flawed (i.e. dumping money on Wall Street for toxic waste).

CD, there is only need for an "I told you so" if you believe that most people, here, were duped, and I really don't think you believe that to be the case, or you'd be somewhere on Kos or somewhere where the commentary is, let's just say, less than thoughtful.

Hillary has the political capital to make demands even if they won't get passed. This complete capitulation is not acceptable. Again, she didn't just drop a HOLC provision, but then went full-on Village speak with us. I don't see how anyone could try and justify that. She'd have been better sulking away than to fight the Village's fight on this one. She didn't have to come out with this, today, or ever. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Don't even try this snow-job. I don't excuse her war vote, and I sure as hell won't excuse or twist this to my liking. This is inexcusable, period. This excuse that she has to tow the Village line to protect her reputation is just disgusting when you consider where the American people are on this and countless other issues where they are opposed to the village.

Through her presidential run she finally gained the ability to be of the people and an unstoppabe force if she so chose. Instead, she went back to the comfortable confines of the Village circuit on this one.

Remember that one?

I remember Bush started a war. Obama would have voted for it, too. So the difference between them is one of experience and long years it took to develop her policies and choose her priorites - that was always my reason for choosing her. No comparison.

Whatev. If he wins, he's in for it anyway, thanks to Bush.

..does have some resonance with me, as I've never seen my states senators turn down any money for our domestic auto industry, but it does not make any criticism of her, today, any less valid which is the tone I'm getting from you. Unlike a bailout for the domestic auto industry, this bailout has the ability to sell away the future of an entire generation of Americans.

So be it, if she feels she can't turn down this money for her state. She is, after all, a New York Senator. But, please, Hillary, don't give me the Village talking points. Don't subject us to that. I thought she had more respect for us than that. If she feels like she can't turn that kind of money down for NYC, then quite frankly she should shut the hell up and fade away into the background on this. Don't come lecturing on on how this bill has to pass, why it has to pass "now, now, now" and how now is not the time for partisanship. She can save that, because we are hardly in the mood to hear more of that.

Again, my problem so much isn't that she's voting for this, but that she seems to have gone out of her way to chide those that aren't going to. Save it, Hillary. I don't want to hear it, not now, not ever.

the simple fact is that via procedure, more than just fillibustering but including that, any senator could hold up any bill for as long as they felt like it. some senators have powers some do not, but there are many ways to throw a wrench into the legislation machine. too bad dems decided to keep all that powder dry. the rethugs don't, i've noticed. odd, that.

...i'm really tired, but perhaps i'll come back later and find it; once i posted on Nanci's amazing ability to utterly kill a minor bill that wasn't to her liking (iirc, nor mine) with a simple act in the capacity of speaker. there are lots and lots of ways to make legislation not happen, as the Republicans have demonstrated again and again, both as majority party and minority, and as individuals. like i said, i'm tired, but a little while ago someone was telling me about some great legislation/renewal of funding for some good program that a single rethug senator had held up and would hold up for as long as it took to kill it.

it's such fucking Kabuki. "we don't have the votes!" "we have no choice but to fund the war!" "we have no authority to arrest those in contempt of congress." i'm no Consitutional Scholar, but i'm also not that fucking stupid. HRC, or anyone, could at the very least hold this bill up for a time long enough for there to be real debate, with any number of the procedural tricks that the founders built into the congressional system.

just think on it: how much political capital/popularity would the politician get, who tried some trick like i'm talking about, should he or she choose to make a media moment out of it? "i'm going to stand here on the Senate floor and fillibuster this atrocity of a bill and rescue the American people from lying, thieving ultra wealthy bankers, who made a mess and now want the American People to pay for. Hell no, I won't allow it!" that person would instantly become the most popular politician in the country, droves of people all along the spectrum would rise in defense of that brave person. a creative staff could find a zillion ways to milk such a stunt, and the MCM/SCLM would be utterly unable to stop people from talking about, indeed they would be forced to cover it...ach, my brain aches at all the ways i can think of to make hay from standing up to this bill, were i a politician.

BDB: i don't want to restart any flamewars, so i'll just let it go. it's no longer important to discuss what was or wasn't said here about HRC during the primary, or rather, i don't believe now is the most productive time to do so. i have an opinion, you're free to ignore, critique, mock, and flame it or not; i'll still think the world of you.

We could not give the treasury a black check,” Clinton said. “A lot of the changes made are for the good.”

She said she expected the House to pass the plan today, and she and other senators will be working feverishly over the next few days to try to accumulate the 60 necessary votes for it to pass in the Senate.

She added that she also plans to introduce legislation creating a system similar to Franklin Roosevelt’s Homeowner Loan Corp. That system will refinance adjustable rate mortgages to loans with lower, and more stable rates to allow homeowners to stay in their homes.

“The problem is that nobody knows who holds their mortgage,” Clinton said. “Only the government has the capacity to push this forward. We have to come together to achieve that.”

Clinton said she is a bit wary of putting money for the bailout in the same hands as those that created the mortgage and banking mess in the first place in hope they find a way to unravel the mess they made, but reiterated that there seems to be no other choice.

She said that she is also worried about the large amount of credit card debt Americans have accumulated.

She said the average American family has about $9,000 in credit card debt and that may be the next sector of the economy to fall apart.

“We have a lot of work to do to dig ourselves out of the hole we’ve put ourselves in,” Clinton said. “We have so much debt. The federal government has lost its way over the past eight years by allowing public and private debt to reach unprecedented levels.”

Reported HERE.

Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions.

Come together at The Confluence

That she plans to introduce legislation for the HOLC after this legislation, which is a good thing that it's an proposal still very much alive in her mind, but it in no way makes up for her said "yes" vote on this existing piece of legislation. The rule is that you get criticisim for proposing and/or voting for bad legislation and you get praised for just the opposite. Hillary is going to have to take her lumps on this just like everyone else if she follows through on voting "yes" for this exisiting legislation. It's as simple as that. She, Obama, and McCain ultimately are in the same boat on this one and that is "yes" voting a horrible transfer of wealth to the private sector with a return that simply isn't worth it, as if breaking even or gaining would even justify such a proposal.

BTW, totally off topic, but at the very moment I'm typing this I see an Obama commercial on television trashing universal healthcare as an extreme on one side of the spectrum, and our current system as an extreme on the other side of the spectrum.

*gag*

What if, there is a real desire for someone to take the lead? What if there aren't a lot of Senators that want to vote for this turkey? What if their leaders aren't giving them any options? And now the entire country is bellowing for someone to do something but not THAT thing. And here she comes on the senate floor and offers them a way out. And the pressure on Republicans gets really intense to do SOMETHING that will help the little guy. And they cave and there is much rejoicing and Harry and Nancy look like the idiots they are and the people rise up and demand Hillary.
Ok, maybe I went too far at the end but a girl can dream, can't she?

Come together at The Confluence

I understand that from now until the end of time, every flaw in the grain of Washington is Her Fault, but it looks to me like she actually is doing something to change the way things are done in the Village:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bor...

Obama could call for the death of all first born and the progblogs, the Dem leadership and the media would praise it. McCain doesn't have the backing of the uber-cons[ervatives] in his own Party, but does have a bully pulpit. Hillary? Well, she's the wicked witch of the east and was practically pushed out of the primary, called a racist, and couldn't even have her delegates vote for her at the convention--where she was forced to humiliate herself and call for acclimation. She definitely does NOT have much power in the party or in Congress with Obama/Dean/Pelosi at the helm.

Now that doesn't mean she should be immune to criticism. But we know that Hillary more than most pols this cycle keeps her promises (e.g. FISA, which Obama could have single handedly stopped, btw). And we know that she wanted to pursue HOLC before any bailout, so we have the DNC, Dem leadership and Obama to blame for this legislation more than anyone else. Hillary is not perfect, but the balme should really be focused where it belongs, and Hillary is now just a small player (unless its being sent out as a prop to get people to vote for Obama).

Biden and Daschle and Kerry and Edwards. Hardly a peep was heard.

Pitiful. Really.

Not a lick of difference between them.

At all.

But you're stuck with him.

The ad wasn't done out of any pressure from the left, rather is done out of the necessity to protect himself from the right, which continue to paint his healthcare plan as 'socialized medicine.' Not sure that there is much to hope about, in that, considering where the pressure is coming from.

What's awesome about this, or are you play contrarian for a contrarian's sake? There is nothing good that has come out of this, and she's not not an exception.

I don't want her blowing herself up in a suicide run for the sake of a symbolic victory. Martyrdom doesn't get us jack shit and martyrdom that accomplishes nothing but symbolism gets us even less and costs us a great Senator, a great leader, a possible future President and much, much, more. Would symbolism make up for losing one of the few real democrats we've got left? She has went all out with the HOLC plan -- pushed it in all kinds of media outlets -- but she doesn't have the power to force a new plan. She can't make Obama champion the cause and he is the only one with the political capital to present an alternative plan that democrats could pass with or without GOP support. If she could actually get an alternative plan pushed through then the fight and possible political death might be worth it but in this case falling on her sword is that and that alone.

If folks want to be disappointed they should be disappointed in the fact that a democrat with name recognition and popular support stood up in our time of need, presented a plan to fix the systemic problems in our economic system, and help homeowners and was soundly ignored and rejected by those in the democratic party leadership that could actually put the plan into action. We have a systemic problem in our party every bit as toxic as the one in our financial system.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!