Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

From politicalwire:


Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin "has overcome early misgivings" about Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy "and will support her publicly in the fight for the Democratic nomination, people close to both of them said yesterday," the New York Times reports.

"Aside from the backing of Al Gore, Mr. Rubin's endorsement has been the biggest prize from the Clinton administration still up for grabs, given his stature as one of the most widely admired economic stewards in Democratic politics. Because he is a deficit hawk, his support could also be a bulwark against Republican accusations that Mrs. Clinton is a free-spending liberal."

The NY Times article:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ 11/07/rubin-to-back-clinton/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/11/08/rubin_pledges_clinton_suppor t.html

This is a significant endorsement because Rubin is known as a deficit hawk, and his endorsement and future appearances on the campaign will signal to Democrats concerned about the budget, but also to Independents who usually are very concerned about deficits, that Hillary Clinton is serious about tackling budget deficits and making getting back to budget balance a priority in her administration.   That is also echoed by her comments when it comes to tweaking Social Security to make it viable for a very long time, as bringing the budget back to balance will do just that.

Tags: balanced budget, Hillary Clinton, Robert Rubin (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Thats great , one of the reasons i am fully supporing her is because of her pledge to bring back fiscal responsibility and discipline . I don't hear too much of that from other democratic candidates.

You are right to will appeal to a lot of conservative/moderate democrats especially.

Did you notice this correction and pseudo apology to Hillary Clinton running in the politico by factcheck.org on the library records issue , you would think that if Tim Russert and msnbe had some decency to apologize to both Bill and Hillary Clinton for misreading a letter in a nationally televised debate .

" But at one point it was moderator Tim Russert who misled . He asked Sen. Clinton if she would lift a "ban" on releasing her White House communications, adding that "a letter written by President Clinton specifically [asks] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012." That misquotes Bill Clinton's letter. There's no "ban."

Correction: Nov. 8: Our story originally stated that Sen. Clinton's response to Russert's question was misleading. We made the same mistake Russert did, misreading the former President's letter to the Archives."

Is this the endorsement that is being pushed on Hillaryhub ? I guess it is.  

by lori 2007-11-09 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I have mixed feelings about Rubin's endorsement.  He was a good steward of the economy, but not everything Wall Street wants is good for the country.  I particularly think we will rue the day when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed.

This, I think, is a fact-based critique of Rubin that explains some of the reasons he's not universally beloved.  We got a lot of things right on the economy in the 90s, it's true, but we didn't get everything right.

by Steve M 2007-11-09 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Well, he had mixed feeling about Hillary.  Look Obama was vying for this endorsement hard.  It's good for Hillary in a state like NH to have an endorsement like this, especially with Mitt Romney running ad to the effect do we want to trust the little lady to this massive budget.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Well, I don't dispute that it's good for her regardless of what I might happen to think.  I'm not kidding myself into thinking that legions of voters wake up every morning outraged about the Glass-Steagall Act, hehe.

One of the things I admire about Bill Clinton is that he's an open-minded person who learns from his mistakes.  I see Hillary as generally the same type of person.  Something that's obviously tricky for her to talk about, but I'd be really curious to hear from her, is what mistakes she believes were made in the 90s and what she would do differently.

by Steve M 2007-11-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

The main thing I take out of it is that Rubin's endorsement means (and signals to many, especially budget-conscious Democrats) that Clinton is serious about getting back to budget balance during her presidency.  It makes all the sense in the world.  The GOP scored for decades with this "free spending, tax and spend liberals" crap, but the first time we had budget balance in forever was during Clinton's last 3 years in the White House (chief architect D-Spratt-SC.)   If we win the WH we now have a historic opportunity to put all that talk to rest for good.  Budget balance under BC, historic budget explosion and free-spending conservatives during Bush, then achieving budget balance again under the next Democratic adinistration.   The "tax and spend" label will be gone for good, which would be very instrumental in crating a lasting Democratic majority.

Getting as close to a healthy fiscal household and a balanced budget is the best way to strengthen the Dollar, the markets, create a healthy economy, make SS viable indefinitely, etc.  But, it has to be done in a smart way, with monies spent on important programs as a top priority, but, by keeping with the budget smart policies instituted in Congress, within the PAYGO rule, a self-imposed responsibility doctrine which will pay dividends for our party for a very long time.    

by georgep 2007-11-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I don't disagree with any of that.  On balance, though, I think Edwards has it right that deficit reduction cannot become an overriding priority if it gets in the way of enacting important social programs in the short term.  As the piece I linked memorably says, "if there's anything more toxic for ordinary consumers and voters than tax and spend, it's tax and not spend."  Now, just because Hillary gets endorsed by Rubin doesn't mean she shares his view that deficit reduction matters more than everything else, but it becomes an article of faith that she'd pursue a more balanced approach like you urge.

The Republicans have given us a tremendous gift by allowing us to claim the title of responsible stewards of the budget.  We definitely need to ride that horse for all it's worth.  But also, let's face it, we can't be the party that takes power and immediately tells the American people that they're going to have nothing but lima beans.  We will need several spoonfuls of sugar to make the medicine go down.

by Steve M 2007-11-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Actually, though, Hillary said the same.  She said health care and the environment would override deficit concerns.  However, we do need to pay down the deficit.  It's absolutely dangerous to owe China as much as we do.  They could call that in any day they wanted to.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I think even Rubin has backed off of the theory that deficit reduction matters more than everything else.  I recall some surprise that his Hamilton Project was not as deficit hawkish as expected.

by souvarine 2007-11-09 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Actually, I appreciate this line of argument from the Clintonites much more then what one usually hears.  I am so past tired of hearing people like Stoller, Bowers and the HRC supporters here over the last year pretending that HRC is as progressive as Edwards or that there is no real differences in policy between them.  There is no doubt in my mind that if HRC is elected, balancing the budget will be her highest domestic priority.  Furthermore, her Administration will have a consistent pro-free trade bias.  Now, as you at least partially discuss, these policies have much to say for them in promoting economic growth.  I disagree, but at least it is an honest position to hold.  Finally, I hope that the major candidates and their supporters can now have an honest, adult debate about which policies the Democratic Party should pursue instead of maintaining the fiction that there is no real differences between the candidates on these issues.

by Andy Katz 2007-11-09 07:16AM | 0 recs
She has said it won't be.

She has been adament that while she plans to reduce the deficit, her highest priorities are health care and energy.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

While I appreciate Edwards' stances to an extent, he is basically not a factor in my decision-making process (and most Democratic voters) because of his reinvention process that seems entirely political.   Here we have a fitting example:

In 2003/2004 he was THE budget hawk running.  He even bashed Universal Health Insurance, only one of the pillars of progressive policy making for over 15 years, as "bad for our country" and "fiscally irresponsible."  He even went off on Kerry's half-complete effort that carried a price tag of a comparatively measly $71 Billion as "too expensive."  IMHO his negative comments about UHC (choosing fiscal responsibility over UHC) from the candidate ranks damaged our candidates' ability to embrace UHC as THE signature domestic difference compared to Bush.  All of a sudden NOW he is the champion of UHC and budget balance and is no longer that important?    I personally am not buying, and, frankly, from the looks of it, most Democrats aren't either.   From one extreme to another usually does not happen without an ulterior motive.  

by georgep 2007-11-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying you think he is less authentic then HRC?  If so, that's fine, though I think very few non-hyper partisans would agree with you.  Are you saying that Edwards does not believe what he is saying today?  If so, I disagree, but I think we would both agree that this is an unprovable point.

My favorite part of your argument is your second to last sentence.  According to my observation, you couch a very large percentage of your arguments and your posts here in terms of Clinton's poll numbers-inevitability versus the poll numbers-viability of other candidates (you say "I'm not buying it and, frankly, from the looks of it, most Democrats arent either").  I love this line of argument and I sincerely hope you Clintonites bring this up more and more.  This discounting Edwards, or anyone other then HRC really, is going to be huge when (ok If) Edwards wins in Iowa.  Over the summer, I thought an Iowa win by Edwards would be discounted.  Now, because of the huge amount of JRE is toast and HRC is inevitable stories, pushed by the HRC campaign and her supporters in the blogosphere, the stakes in Iowa are much higher and the impact of a HRC defeat much greater.  Please keep it up  : ).

by Andy Katz 2007-11-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I have not said that Edwards is toast, although, honestly, I don't see an easy path for the nomination for him, even if he were to win Iowa (which is now very questionable, whereas right before summer I considered an Edwards win in Iowa as a near-certainty.)   Obama has a clearer path, although he, too, has to thread a needle and he has to be considered a big underdog at this point.   So, I give Edwards about a 10% shot at winning the monination, Obama gets about 20%.  Better odds than you can get in the online betting circuit for either, that's for sure.  

But that is not the point I was making.  The point is that nationally most Democrats don't view Edwards as presidential timber, and a big part of the reason for many, especially engaged Democrats, is the fact that they remember what Edwards stood for in 2004.  Budget prudence and a dismissal of UHC has turned into the counteropposite.  His war stance is now the counteropposite.  I can name about 7 more major issues on which Edwards has undergone a major epiphany within a short 2, 3 years.   No matter how Edwards does in Iowa, that perception of Edwards as not absolutely genuine will persist and hurt him in every state in which he now pulls in 8% to 15%.  That is so because those perceptions are now frozen in place, given that Edwards has decided to go negative and make Clinton his target, not any one major issue or the GOP.   And, yes, absolutely, Clinton is regarded as the more authentic of the two, no question.  We are talking AMONGST DEMOCRATS here, right?  She has not wavered on UHC over all these years, not for a minute.  Never regarded it as fiscally irresponsible or bad for the country.  

Many issues have led to most Democrats not choosing Edwards, but I think the authenticity issue weighs heavily against him.  Many simply aren't buying that he has made that 180 degree turnaround on a plethora of issues.   We are a cynical sort, and sweeping rhetoric for many of us does not replace an actual record and that is certainly more so when fresh in our memories a centrist/moderate Edwards argued against Universal Health Care, for budget balance (to his credit, but still a flip-flop within a short time span,) etc.

Andy, can you at least address my point that Edwards was running as THE budget hawk in 2004, declaring UHC "fiscally irresponsible" and "bad for our country" particularly due to budgetary concerns, and that this complete turnaround in the entirely opposite direction is very hard to "swallow" and "buy" for many of us, because there was no long drawn-out evolution, just "bam," and we have the new Edwards and this new rhetoric.    

by georgep 2007-11-09 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

You deserve an answer to your questions-and I would like to reply to your misstatements-at length, but I dont have the energy to take this on now.  I will try to reply to this in detail tomorrow.

by Andy Katz 2007-11-09 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Very Irritatingly, I have spent over 30 mins on a reply, only to have my computer restart and lose my response.  Let me give you the short version:

Your first paragraph is simply false.  You can not possibly provide a link to any poll showing this is true because it is not.

As for the rest, yes I admit that JRE's positions have evolved somewhat over time, though you greatly overstate the case.  JRE was the most progressive person ever elected to the Senate from NC and was as progressive as a viable politician from that state could be.  I also have a more complex argument that I will just wait to give for another posting.  I am sure you will raise this issue again.

There are also misstatements regarding HRC's so-called consistent support for HRC.  I looked up the links, lost them, and just dont have the time to look it up again.  Do a google search for HRC and health care and you will find the links I am talking about.

Finally, that we are having this conversation, to me is some what incredible.  HRC has, at various times, been a "Goldwater Republican," a strong progressive, a pragmatic somewhat cautious progressive, a DLC pro-free trade, pro tax cuting, pro welfare ending, pro social welfare cutting centrist, and an uber cautious somewhat progressive candidate.  To point to the consistency of an opponent of hers as a reason for not supporting such candidate is like a Bush supporter pointing to the intelligence of a politicalopponent of his as a reason for opposition.

by Andy Katz 2007-11-10 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Or maybe a realization that you don't have to listen to consultants that want you to calculate half the distance between something and stake out what seems a "safe" position.  Maybe he just decided that he'd go for broke as his own person.

Anyone who has spent any time with JRE on the campaign trail will tell you that it's impossible to fake what he's doing out there.  He was a damn good trial lawyer sure - but he doesn't have an Oscar - you can't fake being a sincere person when you're speaking passionately about what you really believe.

by Peter from WI 2007-11-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
oooh - you mean progressivee like this?

Dodd Campaign: John Edwards May Not Take Money From Washington Lobbyists, But He Sure Acted Like It

   * Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors. [HR 833, Vote 5, 2/2/00; Des Moines Register, 3/16/01]

edwards screw lower income americaans and supports the credit card companies by voting for the Bankruptcy Bill.

  * Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans. [S.420, Vote 36, 3/15/01; S.420, Vote 29, 3/14/01]

   * Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. [S.420, Vote 16, 3/7/01]

   * Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy. [S.420, Vote 33, 3/15/01; CQ Quarterly, 3/5/01]

   * Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure. [HR 333, Vote 234, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 236, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 230, 7/12/01]

   The bill "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives." [Associated Press, 7/12/01]

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptc y_articles_john_edwards.htm

   While John Edwards has positioned himself as being antipoverty during his bid for the Democratic ticket to the White House, another presidential hopeful has used the topic of bankruptcy as a means to challenge Edwards' campaign messaging.

   Specifically, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has pointed out John Edwards' bankruptcy voting record as clear evidence that the former personal injury lawyer in North Carolina is not antipoverty but rather more about special interests.
    ....
    The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

   Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

   Questioning his opponent's political allegiances, Dodd noted how Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment.

   Edwards' voting record on bankruptcy issues gets worse, according to the Dodd camp. Dodd detailed how Edwards once again lined up with the Republicans in rejecting an amendment that would have included a more consumer-friendly means test than in the original Bankruptcy Overhaul bill of 2001. That amendment would have initiated a Chapter 7 means test that would have averaged the debtor's last two months of income and taken into account sudden job losses or disabilities. The original bill mandated a means test averaging the debtor's last six months of income.

   Dodd concluded the press release by saying that Edwards ultimately supported a bankruptcy bill that not only punished the financially vulnerable but also aligned with big banks and credit card companies.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

The stock market is tanking, the economy is rapidly sliding into recession...

It's 'economy stupid' again!

by prisonbreak 2007-11-09 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

oh shove it already... Every single person that endorses someone other than Edwards, you all wig out and try to blame them for something.

Sorry not everyone in the party is "holier than thou"

Go ahead and slime Dukakis and Mondale like the rest of your peers.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-09 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

There may have been hyperbolic claims about Hillary's other endorsements (I don't follow, so I can't say), but Rubin is different.  Rubin has a well-developed reputation among the Democratic wing.

by Junior Bug 2007-11-09 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Reportedly, the sun is also going to rise tomorrow.

by Andy Katz 2007-11-09 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Hillary Hub (http://www.hillaryhub.com/) is announcing in a big headline that a major endorsement is coming today.  I'm wondering whether it's this one or somebody else.  Hmmm.

by markjay 2007-11-09 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

No.

by prisonbreak 2007-11-09 06:49AM | 0 recs
Politico is reporting Strickland.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Politico is reporting Strickland.

Let the VP rumors commence!

by Steve M 2007-11-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
I guess

Rubin waited to make sure Hillary supported the corporate "free" trade regime.

This only tells us what we already knew: Hillary is the Wall Street candidate.

by david mizner 2007-11-09 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

Edwards would lop off a limb for such an endorsement.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

Not Rubin's.  Have you been paying attention to this race or just sticking your head up your ass and thinking about Hillary?

by Peter from WI 2007-11-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

I think most of these people have no idea who Rubin is.

by Junior Bug 2007-11-09 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

You really do just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?  I don't understand why it is so completely impossible for you to just say "congratulations" and move on, but it indicates that your Hillary hate overwhelms everything else.

by Denny Crane 2007-11-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

Because for many of us, Robert Rubin epitomizes a lot of what's wrong with Democratic politics and economics.

Wall Street does not need another president, another Senator, another Congressperson.  Elites like Rubin are what fucked up this party on policy and more.  And we resent his influence because it is a cancer on democrats and Democrats.

Good for Hillary for picking up an endorsement of someone she obviously seeks approval from - but don't expect me to think that it's good for the country that Rubin and his ilk are sliding in to try to keep running the country through a Democratic president like Hillary.

When Jared Bernstein, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Jeff Faux endorse, then I'll think it might be a good thing.  Rubin is just an elite trying to push the coronation of someone else from that class.

by Peter from WI 2007-11-09 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

Peter, you're entitled to think anything you like, of course, but I wasn't speaking generically.  I was speaking very specifically to one person here at MyDD who is entirely incapable of saying anything even neutral about Hillary.  It's all venom and half truths.  Your thoughts are valid and I appreciate you sharing them, but they don't apply here.  This poster has negative comments about anyone who endorses someone other than Edwards.  That is what I was addressing.

by Denny Crane 2007-11-09 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

Dodd Campaign: John Edwards May Not Take Money From Washington Lobbyists, But He Sure Acted Like It

   * Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors. [HR 833, Vote 5, 2/2/00; Des Moines Register, 3/16/01]

   * Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans. [S.420, Vote 36, 3/15/01; S.420, Vote 29, 3/14/01]

   * Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. [S.420, Vote 16, 3/7/01]

   * Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy. [S.420, Vote 33, 3/15/01; CQ Quarterly, 3/5/01]

   * Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure. [HR 333, Vote 234, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 236, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 230, 7/12/01]

   The bill "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives." [Associated Press, 7/12/01]

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptc y_articles_john_edwards.htm

   While John Edwards has positioned himself as being antipoverty during his bid for the Democratic ticket to the White House, another presidential hopeful has used the topic of bankruptcy as a means to challenge Edwards' campaign messaging.

   Specifically, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has pointed out John Edwards' bankruptcy voting record as clear evidence that the former personal injury lawyer in North Carolina is not antipoverty but rather more about special interests.
    ....
    The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

   Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

   Questioning his opponent's political allegiances, Dodd noted how Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment.

   Edwards' voting record on bankruptcy issues gets worse, according to the Dodd camp. Dodd detailed how Edwards once again lined up with the Republicans in rejecting an amendment that would have included a more consumer-friendly means test than in the original Bankruptcy Overhaul bill of 2001. That amendment would have initiated a Chapter 7 means test that would have averaged the debtor's last two months of income and taken into account sudden job losses or disabilities. The original bill mandated a means test averaging the debtor's last six months of income.

   Dodd concluded the press release by saying that Edwards ultimately supported a bankruptcy bill that not only punished the financially vulnerable but also aligned with big banks and credit card companies.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

This is good for her but I don't think the man-on-the-street knows who he is- you say Rubin and they think the fat guy who won American Idol.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-09 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Robert Rubin used to work for the Clintons.

Endorsements mean nothing. Forget about it. People won't get fooled by the Clintons again.

Hillary's polls numbers are collapsing everywhere. Bill Clinton is called to the rescue! Poor Hillary "victim" Clinton.

I won't be surprise if she drops from Iowa where regular people have to meet candidates face-to-face.
The more you know Hillary, the more you have questions. The more you see her double-face.

by win 2007-11-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

You could not be more wrong.  Polls are actually better now than they were in the week preceeding the debate.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

by georgep 2007-11-09 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

georgep:

You are arguing with them using facts. That is your problem. Facts means little to people who live in fantasy land. Let them live in it for 3 more months. It will come crashing down when it meets the reality.

by rakk12 2007-11-09 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Polls, polls, polls, polls......Hahahahaha!!!

Have you wondered why in Iowa, where folks have to meet the candidates face-to-face, ask questions directly, she is losing????

And guess what? If she loses Iowa, the myth is over. If not for Bill Clinton, she will be out long time ago.

by win 2007-11-09 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

She is LOSING in Iowa?  That is just a plain insane statement.

Let's look at reality here for a minute, shall we?

If that is her losing, I don't want to see what you'll do if she actually WINS there.   I don't mind highly illogical argumentation, it amuses me.  But when you deliberately ignore facts and claim the sky is really green and the earth is really flat, you won't score points for clarity, honesty or lucency.

BTW, the last Iowa poll Clinton did NOT win dates all the way back to mid-September, and even that was well within the margin of error.  

by georgep 2007-11-09 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I like your obsession with polls.

Listen, you don't buy HONESTY. Clinton is NOT honest. And in Iowa, folks discovered that.

50% of people WILL NOT for Clinton "UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"

The Philadelphia debate just highlighted that troubling fact.

by win 2007-11-09 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Actually, the Philadelphia debate highlighted the fact that Chris Dodd is willing to say that even though it isn't true.

It's kind of disappointing, actually, that Chris Dodd and you, the Ambassador from NewsMax, are reading from the same talking points.

by Steve M 2007-11-09 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Actually, there are varying polls. One famously had her at 51%, but most have had her well below that number in the low 40s. And combine that with the fact that her numbers against Romney and Thompson are usually around 50, and yes, you're right, this is a bit ludicrous...

But it's not a "lie", since there was a pretty famous poll that made the case.

by wahoopaul 2007-11-09 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Yeah, there was one poll from six months ago.  In light of all the more recent polls that contradict it, no, I don't think it's honest to bandy about that number as gospel.

Frankly, the very notion that a politician's "would never vote for under any circumstances" number could go down over time, regardless of whether it's Hillary or someone else, calls the entire premise of the question into doubt.  I mean, obviously some people are telling pollsters "never" when they don't mean it.

by Steve M 2007-11-09 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I like how you don't address the facts when presented.  So, all you are here for is just spreading themes that don' line up with reality?   Why not honestly discuss when facts are presented?  You stated that Clinton is losing in Iowa, when in reality the polls and trends show otherwise.  Perhaps in the future you may want to be a bit more careful with bold, sweeping statements that you can't back up.  

by georgep 2007-11-09 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I agree. Go to pollster.com, and Hillary has been gaining in Iowa while Edwards has lost support and Obama has stayed stagnant. THat's the general trend.

I'll have to see more polls, but I think the bleeding has stopped for Edwards after the last debate...I expect the next polls to be at about this level:

Tie: Clinton/Obama (statistical margin) - 25-30
Edwards: 18-20

by wahoopaul 2007-11-09 10:19AM | 0 recs
as a Clintton supporter who acttually undersands

these things....

Id be hppy to give Iowa to Edwards for free...

That would totally fuck Obama and we would STILL win big....probably bigger..

but Hillary int as conniving as i am...she wants to give iowa voters the chance to choose.

You cant understand this can you?

h-ha-ho

Im laughing at your pea brain....

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:43PM | 0 recs
more from Win...

Endorsements mean nothing.

polls numbers mean nothing

facts mean nothing

truth means nothing

reality means nothing

intelligence mean nothing

the will of most democrats mean nothing

primaries mean nothing

my stupidity means nothing

the results will mean nothing

that Im off my meds mean nothing

that others dont know im King mean nothing

that theyre coming to put me back in my padded cell mean nothing.......

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:37PM | 0 recs
"This is a significant endorsement"

HA!!!!!!

by wahoopaul 2007-11-09 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Congratulations, I'm glad I don't have to call this endorsement for my candidate. If I did, I wouldn't be supporting him.

by Progressive America 2007-11-09 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Hey, PA, are you going to update your "Daily Tracking Poll" diary, given the dramatic turnaround we have seen over the last 2 days?  After all, it was a 7% turnaround towards her and away from Obama in addition to Edwards losing a point.  I guess not.

by georgep 2007-11-09 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

I responded to one of your other comments, when you mentioned this. Edwards is still at 15% and stablized there, so there is no evidence that he has dropped. The point of the diary was not about national polls being important, but rather just confirming the drops we have seen in New Hampshire and Iowa. And I was also trying to point out that Edwards has not seen a drop after he's taken on Hillary's record, though you keep saying he would see this drop. Well, where is it? Three polls taken in New Hampshire, one already out (Rasmussen), are going to show him at 15% support. Do you want to change the numbers you have given in your diaries?

by Progressive America 2007-11-09 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Your previous diary is now defunct and in need of update.  44% is well above 39%, a turnaround of 7%.  

Remember what you wrote:

"Over the last week Hillary has been sinking in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll. Now she has dropped below 40% for the first time since September. The question is, how much farther will her numbers fall?"

Well, that question has been answered, obviously, and it is not an answer you'll like.  Clinton is again 30% ahead of Edwards, and you are celebrating THAT?  Incredible.  

BTW, Edwards has been heading downwards, something you can't whitewash, talk away.  Check the red trendline, here:

Looks like a downward trend to me.  Not to you?  Baffling.  Look at the red dots over these last 10 days.   And, if Edwards numbers are down to 13%, 12% again come Monday, Tuesday w. Rasmussen, then what will you say?    

The last 13 national polls for Edwards:

12%, 11%, 15%, 14%, 12%, 10%, 12%, 12%, 12%, 13%, 12%, 13%, 12%

Come on, PA.  He had at least the occasional 18%, 16%, 17% in previous months.  Now 12% is the most common result in national polling data for him.  Not good.  Negative does not sell.  

by georgep 2007-11-09 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Robert Rubin to endorse Hillary Clinton

Look, the real big deal is going to be New Hampshire and Iowa, where the race is getting much closer. You also can't deny that Hillary has lost support in New Hampshire. And actually, Edwards has been around 12% much of the last year, with sure some high points at 17-18% every once in a while. The thing is, there is no evidence he has dropped since the debates and 15% in New Hampshire is better than the 10-14% he was getting previously in polls there. If he is polling at 15% now, higher than before the debate, than why should he stop what he's doing? The election is going to be in Iowa and New Hampshire, not in national polls.

by Progressive America 2007-11-09 02:34PM | 0 recs
sshe will win by 10 in NH

5 to 7 in SC - and then its ll over...

been saying that for months...

and thats if every thing goes bad...

poor you..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: sshe will win by 10 in NH

Let's compromise.  You put your prediction in your signature, so it'll be there when you talk about something else.  Then talk about something else.

by Junior Bug 2007-11-09 06:42PM | 0 recs
and give up my proof of

youze guy's lunacy?  no way!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-10 06:31AM | 0 recs
he Obaamaa people expected Rubin to endorse

him, since Rubin son works for him.

But deception is your game isnt it?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-09 05:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads