Is there no remedy other than a constitutional amendment for Citizens United?

So she'll maybe help reduce the amount of money involved in buying future elections after she successfully buys this one? Well that's awfully nice of her.

Interesting she talks about the right to vote but not about restoring the Voting Rights Act.

I suppose her army of focus group consultants decided that the middle-class white voters she's chasing see that as affirmative action or something.

I think "if necessary" means if she can't get a Supreme Court Justice appointed that will overturn the decision. Passing an amendment takes a lot of time and it's hard to get to the required number of states to pass it. The best bet to overturn it is change at the Supreme Court. The safest but hardest way is an amendment that can't be overturned by the SC

She has my vote.

Constitutionally, the President has nothing to do with Amendments. She can "support" it, which would be nice, but it's up to the Senate and House and then the State Leges.
So yeah, better justices and a nice juicy test case. Either path, the Dems need to take the House and Senate by BIG majorities.

@3 Damn straight. No good reason to unilaterally disarm. Win by the rules currently in place, to be in a better position to write better rules.

@8 She'll write better rules while fulfilling the wishes of her donors who don't want the rules changed? I am thoroughly unconvinced, especially in light of her actual record.

She had a chance to take on Jeb Bush and the GOP for disenfranchising Floridan voters 15 years ago, she didn't do it in spite of the mile high stakes (the presidency). Why would she do it now?

I want to believe in Hillary so desperately, and yet I remind myself of the times when I felt so let down by the previous Clinton administration. I admired Bill Clinton enormously, voted for him twice, and in retrospect, I think the 90s were, for me personally, the last great and exciting decade: a bright young boy rolled into town and started writing an outrageous column, Nirvana and Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and the 90s version of Madonna, Broadway, my paycheck steadily rose, and I was twenty-five years younger. But Bill let us down big time a couple of times. There was the health care debacle, and there was Defense of Marriage - since overturned. I know Hillary isn't her husband, but the memory lingers of cowering under Republican pressure even when that pressure is based on morally incorrect logic. In short, I'm afraid of that happening again.

But I'll support Hillary in the general election although right now, I'm listening to Bernie Sanders. Hillary's speech was rousing. Both Clintons are masters at telling us what we want to hear. I just hope she keeps her word.

@2 -- There is, but kudos to her for even bringing up the issue. Most people don't give a shit, and that it the problem. Promise them a better economy or lower taxes or an end to the bad guys that might do us harm and they will vote for you. To address an underlying problem, even without being creative, deserves praise.

As far as alternatives, I would start with something similar to the ban on air wave smoking advertisement. You can push your nicotine sticks all you want in print, but you can't spend a dime on tobacco on the radio or TV. That is the grand compromise, and should pass constitutional muster. I think most people would be happy with that as well. The air waves are limited -- that's the problem. If I want to advertise something during the next NBA game, it will cost me a pretty penny. But if I want to distribute fliers, or even advertise in the Seattle Times or this newspaper, it's not that expensive. The Supreme Court has a good point -- you really shouldn't restrict the latter. That is what the first amendment is all about. But the former? That is a very limited medium, and restrictions -- like an outright ban -- are perfectly reasonable. Otherwise you have what you have now, a bidding war for a very limited resource, and that is not right. I'm sure the founding fathers would have been able to see the difference, and maybe I'm being too generous with this court, but I think they could too.

@11 -- Seriously? The Clinton years were probably the greatest years for America, if not humanity, ever. To quote her campaign line from last time: which part didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity? Her fault (or her husband's fault -- they were in kahoots) was in underestimating the dickishness of the Republican party. I doubt LBJ would have made that mistake, and his ugly mug would be on Mount Rushmore by now. But the Clintons did really well, and made no serious mistakes, which is more than you can say about just about anyone.

Health care reform got killed by Republicans, and would have been killed by Republicans this time, but they didn't quite have the votes to do so (pop quiz: name the Republican Senator that voted for the Affordable Care Act -- Ha! -- trick question, nobody). Again, maybe LBJ would have strong armed the Senate back in the day to get it done, but those two were new in town -- rookies, and you really can't expect them to do better.

Gay rights? He moved the ball forward. Maybe not as much as LBJ or any other really bad ass guy would, but the legislation that seems so backwards now was a huge advancement then -- oh, how far we've come. Some (incorrectly, if you believe the experts) credit the idea of gay marriage as being the reason Gore wasn't elected. So you want to criticize the Clintons for not doing more? OK, but tell me if you wouldn't rather have had pussy ass Al Gore, afraid to support gay marriage, versus George Bush. I'm just saying.

No, Ms. Clinton has only made one really big fuck up in her life: She voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. She is no Patty Murray. She probably voted for it for political reasons, although to be fair, she may have simply trusted the government, and the press, which just reiterated the government's lies. Silly girl. Apparently she forget everything she learned in the White House (Republicans can be dicks) and fell for their stupid plan. Not that Bill would have done anything different (silly boy) but either way, that is a knock against her, and makes me wonder if we couldn't do a little bit better.

@11, 12, 13

Right, never mind NAFTA (the death of American manufacturing), the repeal of Glass-Steagall (responsible for the financialization of the economy that led to the 2007 crash), so-called welfare reform, and on. As soon as the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, the Clinton mirage evaporated into thin air.

@4 She's already called for restoration of the Voting Rights Act. She did so in a speech in Texas June 4th.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-brief…

@4 Again, her call for restoring the Voting Rights Act is right on her webpage:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-…

I don't normally vote on single issues, but I will say that it would be hard to vote for a guy who voted against the Brady Bill and other common sense gun measures (Bernie Sanders). He also has voted to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…

I like Hillary on most issues. She is light years away from any of the Republicans. And now that I have a 7 month old daughter, I'll admit that it would be great to finally have a woman as president. It would be good for my daughter and her generation.

So I'm excited to support Hillary Clinton for president.

I don't give a shit about Hilary's pluses or minuses. If she wins the nomination, she's got my vote, and my contributions. What's the alternative? Letting a Republican win? God fucking help us.

Which is not to say I'm necessarily supporting her in the primary. That reminds me, I promised myself to send Bernie Sanders a check, and haven't done it yet. http://berniesanders.com Bernie 2016, PO Box 905, Burlington, VT 05402 Bernie is airing populist positions, and win or lose, he has the power to turn some voters against the Republicans.

If anyone counts themselves as a progressive, or a liberal, or even a moderate, and you don't do everything in your power to keep the GOP ("God's Own Party") from winning, you're a fucking idiot.

This is the same toothless bag of gas Liz Warren has been spewing.

All talk. No specifics.

I thought I was Ready For Hillary, but then Bernie happened. So we'll see. And just in case it hasn't been mentioned recently, JBITDMFOTP

JBITSMFOTP
so say we all!

JBITDMFOTP!

What is a toothless bag of gas, and how do you spew one?

@20-22

Ok, tell me. Other than repeat Liz Warren's speech from the last year, what, specifically, does she propose to do, say economically.

Please use a numbered list.

You can stop at 3, but I don't think you'll get past 1.

I, Hillary Clinton, will do these things:

1. _______________________________
2. _______________________________
3. _______________________________

@20, @21: Re JBITDMFOTP vs. JBITSMFOTP: While I believe "Dumbest" was the initial formulation of the phrase, the subsequent change to "Stupidest" seems to get the most usage of late. Is this just a preference thing, or is there some important nuance in play?

@24 c. @23

Answer the question(s)

@14 -- Glass-Steagall -- OK, I forgot about that. By far the biggest fuck up of Bill Clinton. I agree. This was huge, and he did it to appease Republicans. Very, very stupid.

NAFTA -- Not nearly the big deal people thought is was going to be (on either side). Mexico is simply not where the cheap jobs (or any jobs) have gone. They have gone to Asia. Opportunities to tie labor and environmental progress in developing countries with better trade benefits (which is something Clinton pushed for before he left) were lost soon after Bush came into power.

Welfare reform -- Another bad idea, but not nearly as bad as the cuts in social programs that happened before and after.

As soon as the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, the Clinton mirage evaporated into thin air.

I disagree. I just don't see the country falling very far if Gore was in charge. First, he knew the importance of tech, but mostly, he would have been ready with a stimulus package. Clinton would have, too (if he would have been around for a third term). We were running surpluses prior to that. Simply spending a bunch of money would have gotten us moving again in no time. But instead Bush cut taxes big time. This helped the economy a bit, but most of it went to the wealthy, which is really bad for average people as well as the economy in general. Spending more always gets you out of a recession faster than tax cuts. The results are generally much better for the middle class -- especially compared to a lowering of the top rates (as Bush did).

@2

That was another thing she stole:

Sanders Files Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/p…

Hillary is the kleptomaniac bag lady of politics!

She's taking stuff of the aisles that isn't hers...

@26

NAFTA was the source of one of the greatest human rights violations in history.

The displacement of millions of Mexican agricultural workers, who became noncompetitive with the importation of cheap produce from America.

The product of this was the creation of vast Diapora of Hispanics, forced to ford rivers, scale barbed wire, traverse deserts and get shot at, harassed, jailed and forced to work as low paid laborers.

This horrific incident ranks up there with the Holocaust, in my opinion and it was the callous Clintons, who maliciously enabled it in order to make this horror happen, simply to create more enslaved voters for Democrat districts. Do you get the message? Hillary will stop at nothing, destroy any life, to claw her way to Power!

@18 -- I agree. The difference between the worst Democrat and the best Republican is huge, especially as long as the House is controlled by the Republicans. The question for me is who has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee. If that is Hillary Clinton, then is it worth risking a loss versus the chance to get a better President? I don't know, and I have no idea what the odds are of any candidate winning at this point, but time will tell. I personally felt like Obama had a better chance last time, which is why I supported him. He has done pretty much what I expected him to do, which is not very different than what Hillary Clinton would have done.

It's going to be a squeaker this time. Kasick and Paul outpoll her currently in OH while Rubio is even. Bush and Rubio outpoll her in FL. She can win without those two but she can't lose anything else that Obama won.
Is she really gonna keep railing on hedge fund managers? Who's buying that? Chelsea and her husband live in an $11,000,000 penthouse that he bought as a hedge fund manager.

BTW, I guess it's "Kasich"

@30 At this time in the 2012 election cycle we were talking about Herman Cain and Rick Perry surging to the front of the GOP field. It's way too early to make any kind of prediction, aside from "Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee."

@30, Actually, she can also lose Virginia and STILL win the election.

Go to the following website and click on "very close," which in this case is all the states within 5% points. There's 4 states that fit that description -- NC, VA, OH & FL. Obama won all of them except NC. But even if he had lost them all, he would have still won with 272 EV's.

http://www.270towin.com/

What I like about Hillary, is she stood for what she knew was important. Her family.
She could have kicked that idiot husband of hers to the curb, lose him to some idiot woman. Then her family would have been broken.
And Bill could have left, so he saw the value in staying. And now they are grandparents.
She's a Tough Woman.

Has their daughter given birth? So maybe grandparents to be.
And of course, H is one clever politician, with a heart- a tough heart to be sure.

Hillary is a politician just like her husband and just like every other person running in this election.

I only voted for her husband the first time he ran. After his going back on his promises to the gay community I couldn't vote for him. But of course I couldn't vote for any Republican either. It's one thing to vote for someone who throws you under the bus, it another to vote for the guy driving the bus. I basically threw my vote away that election because I couldn't bare to vote for anyone who might actually have had a chance if winning, and I knew my state was going to go for him by a decent margin anyway.

Is Hillary without faults? No. Do I really trust her? No.

But I will vote for any Democrat that wins the primary because we all know who ever wins will either be a Democrat or a Republican, and we can't let the Republicans win this time. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

I don't care who the Democrats run, I'll vote for them based only on the fact they aren't Republican. That is unless some miracle happens and the Republicans actually run someone who isn't a right wing lunatic, but we have a better chance of FDR raising from the grave to run again.

I'll vote for Hillary. I'll vote for Bernie. I'll vote for a chimp who flings his poo at the press corp. before I'll vote for any of the current crop of republican sociopaths up for the nomination. Our political landscape to me seems very bleak and all we can hope is to make it to the other side with at least some of our rights and democracy intact.

@34 she stayed with Bill because it was the right thing to do for her political career.

A Hiliary win will continue Obama's economic (climate, trade, immigration), domestic (NSA, data mining), and foreign policies. In actuality, the many "citizens united" control the outcome of these issues.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/22/12-ways…

Voting is where the 2 parties will bloodlet over. Obvious reasons. A constitutional amendment is as obtainable as world peace. But very smart poltics to use and good sound bite to rally the troop.

If you're argument to vote for someone is simply the threat of the Supreme Court you really don't have a candidate worth voting for. Maybe you need to get serious about a new political party or is that just too much hard work?

Of course @39. Why didn't I think of that. Between trying to keep my family fed and my rent paid I will add to my To Do List the creation of a new political party that can compete with both the Rs and the Ds.

Think I can do it on my lunch hour?

@37. What a cynic.

@37; Part of her reason, no doubt. Obviously she's very ambitious, she wants to be the President of USA.
And Obama, well. As much as I think he's a great guy, he has stalled on dealing with issues. Like IS. Like Syria several years ago.
Hilary is so so much better than anything the other team will throw up. And she Is a woman.

Ms Lava - Yes, but there are better women. Much of the HRC cheerleading is coming from a not-even-bothering-to-pretend-to-veil-it desire to see the other side choke on its own bile for a number of years.

@2: Guillotines.

@44 they get closer every year...