Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: When people notice the GOP has nothing... (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  HRC-unlike Bushies-helped start Clinton dynasty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Friend, stevenaxelrod

    As much as I hated her vote enabling the Iraq war, and am nervous about her and Bill's tendency to triangulate, we have often nominated worse Presidential candidates than I expect Hillary to be this time.

    •  What could be worse than the Clintons' record? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies

      For Democrats, that is.  Not only is Hillary no populist, she's straight from Wall Street.  

      She'll give speeches like she did last week, courageously saying pretty things about non-controversial topics (voting rights), sounding all courageous and of-the-people-ish.  But behind this will be the machine.  The same machine that gave us Rubin, Nafta, deregulation, outsourcing, Blackwater, etc.  

      •  But has Obama been different than this? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geenius at Wrok

        The problem of Democratic Presidents siding with Wall Street (and the NSA etc.) is bigger than Hillary or Bill.  And some of the threats we now face from Republicans are even more urgent and damaging than those from the Rubin mentality.

        If she achieves payback against the vast Right-wing conspiracy, runs up a big margin in demographics that were less accepting of Obama, and has coat-tails in swing Congressional districts, that could be a pretty good result for Progressives, although not as good as a more- Progressive winning nominee.  

        A more-Progressive candidate unifying Progressive voters in competition against Hillary would add much value to the primary process.

        •  Agree we need a good progressive candidate in the (0+ / 0-)

          primaries.  But that person needs to beat Clinton.  She will never be a Progressive or even a liberal.

          Obama has been different than this, imo, though many here will no doubt disagree.  Obama compromises and ignores some big areas (FDA, NSA, etc) and many of the results under him have been disappointing, but the Clintons sell out gleefully and energetically.  

          •  Obama/Clinton comparisons; who cd beat HRC? (0+ / 0-)

            I did not follow Bill's policies closely enough to compare all of their substance with that of Obama's, but it seems to me that:

            1. Bill never had the type of opportunity that Obama had, when the banks needed to be bailed out, to cut back their disproportionate influence.  

            2. More broadly, W managed to discredit Republicanism in the eyes of swing voters much more emphatically than any of his predecessors, but Obama failed to take much advantage of this.

            What Progressive could beat the now grandmotherly former SOS Hillary? Which one would be willing to go all out in trying?

            (I assume that Russ Feingold has never been forgiven by Clintons for breaking ranks on Bill's impeachment, but Russ does not seem to have sustained, if he ever had, an appetite for campaigning).

            •  Good points. I don't know if there's someone (0+ / 0-)

              ready & willing to go all out.  Others here know more about progressive Dems across the country than me.

              I watched Warren campaign here in MA last year.  She was a tornado energywise.  But it'd surprise me if she was interested or ready.

              Wyden's getting a lot of good press over the NSA, but I don't know much about him otherwise.  Who else, DKers?  

              We can't just let Hillary assume her way to the nomination.  And she might be just good enough to win it and lose the general.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site