Hillary's Visit to Denver

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:21:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton came to Denver yesterday. She held a rally at the Auraria campus of Metro State. Big Head Todd and the Monsters played until she arrived. More than 1,000 attended.

The reviews are in and she did very well. She's taking a firmer stand on issues and was well received by the crowd.

Her promises:

She would withdraw the troops from Iraq, create millions of jobs in renewable energy by taking $50 billion in tax subsidies away from Big Oil, create universal pre-kindergarten, forgive more student loans and open up the congressional health care plan to all Americans.

On Bush:

Clinton also took aim at President Bush. She called Hurricane Katrina "a natural disaster turned into a national disgrace. If you had turned the sound off, you wouldn't have believed you were looking at pictures of America."

Increasingly in the campaign, there is only one Hillary for folks to see. (More...)

The Hillary Clinton with the high negative ratings, the polarizing former first lady who even some Democrats worry might drag down the rest of the ticket if nominated for president, didn't show up in Denver on Tuesday.

Instead, a comfortable, smiling, crowd-inspiring Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived 15 minutes early.

< The Plot Thickens For Obama On McClurkin | Arthur Schlesinger's Nostradamus Moment >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary's Visit to Denver | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

... and a chicken in every pot (none / 0) (#1)
by roy on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:54:01 AM EST

I'm all for eliminating (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:03:37 AM EST

subsidies for Big Oil, but do we have an explanation for how that will create "millions" of jobs?

Presumably by funding (none / 0) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:25:53 AM EST

alternative energy startups, though it is hard to tell from the statement quoted.

I would observe the New Deal subsidized hydro-electricity and created jobs and improved lives. This is not considered PC to notice, however.


I was really (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:45:32 AM EST

looking for her explanation, but your explanation would have some holes. First, it would seem beyond question that eliminating oil subsidies would standing alone cause a net loss in jobs. First, directly in the oil industry and then secondarily throughout the economy because more expensive energy will necessarily economic growth and likely even cause a contraction.

Then we have your idea of taking the $50,000,000,000 in additional government revenue and funding alternative energy startups. Even if we had 100% job creation efficiency in that regard (not even a remote possibility) 50 billion would fund only one million jobs that required a total of $50,000 each in total costs for wages, benefits and ancillary costs. Now, in some parts of the country decent jobs could be provided for $50K a year each, but how many years would it take before we saw 100,000 jobs actually created let alone a million and how could it possibly be "millions"?

The truth is that trading one set of subsidies for another set in no way means any increase in employment ever , would almost certainly mean a short-term loss of employment and substituting more expensive energy for cheaper energy would almost certainly decrease economic efficiencty and economic growth.

there are MANY good short and long termreasons for eliminating subsidies to big oil but job creation is not likely among them.

I don't believe she stated the job benefits (none / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:30:05 PM EST

would be immediate. For all either of us know, she is talking long term. I think you may have changed the terms of the debate to turf you prefer.

And since we don't know what alternatives she is proposing we don't really know what whether or not there would be an increase in jobs.

That said, you overstate here:

The truth is that trading one set of subsidies for another set in no way means any increase in employment ever

The truth is this assertion is not provable. At best you could say T

he truth is that trading one set of subsidies for another set in no way guaranties any increase in employment

And that would be true. You are usually better than this.


That was inartfully phrased (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:35:38 PM EST

"The truth is that trading one set of subsidies for another set in no way means any increase in employment ever."

Was not intended to mean that trading one set of subsidies for another cannot increase employment under any cicumstances, although I can see interpreting it that way given the poor exposition.

I meant that trading one set of subsidies for another set does not ensure any increase in employment in the short or long term.


: You usually do choose your words more precisely (none / 0) (#10)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:53:51 PM EST

Did You See Her Statement re the Funding Request? (none / 0) (#3)
by Alegre on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:55:11 AM EST

Talk about taking the lead in the fight to oppose anything that doesn't include a redeployment of our troops!

Yeah!

http://HillarysBloggers.com

One consistent voice (none / 0) (#6)
by diogenes on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:48:22 AM EST

That voice is the voice of the panderer, saying whatever she needs to say to get elected. If she wins in 2008, she will do whatever it takes to be reelected in 2012. If the polls say don't defund Iraq then she won't. If the polls say give every child a five thousand dollar savings bond when he or she is born then propose it. I can see why Democrats would prefer her to a Republican, but why in heaven's name would they nominate an untrustworthy pander bear at all? Then again, I supported Paul Tsongas in 1992, so what do I know...

And that differentiates her from whom? (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:37:10 PM EST

At least among politicians whose actual goal is to win elections.


Well said... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:17 PM EST

show me a front-runner from either party and I'll show you a panderer.

Show me a candidate who doesn't pander and I'll show you one of the also-rans.

Judging by how we vote, we all must love panderers.


: But only when they pander to us... (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:38:31 PM EST

Question and answer (none / 0) (#13)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:22:49 PM EST

She would withdraw the troops from Iraq,
All of them?

I don't think so.

cynicism (none / 0) (#14)
by diogenes on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:25:32 PM EST

There are degrees of pandering in different politicians. For maybe the second time I agree with Che. How can any of you rabidly anti-Iraq War people be supporting Hillary at this early stage?