Yeah, I know the word has come down from on high, from the great Kos in the sky, that we’re supposed to be in GE mode, even though the primary isn’t over. Yeah I know, MATH. But it’s the principle, something many democrats seem to have forgotten. Ya know like this!
Her rank and willful dishonesty drives me up the wall, because while it may show that Clinton will do and say anything to win, it also shows that she'll use Karl Rove tactics to make it happen.
Mrs. Clinton has claimed that her campaign contribution do not influence her. Of course there is this. But, according to democrats, only republicans are the only people that are influenced by campaign contributions. I find that kind of interesting because in President Obama’s book, even he admitted contributions have made an impact on how he went about framing issues with constituents.
From the Intercept:
Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population — that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every senator: The longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.
And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don’t want to have to go through all the misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven’t changed Washington, and you’ve made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.
(bold emphasis mine)
Could have something to do with situational ethics?
Maybe because Hillary pulled a Cheney?
How about shameless hypocrisy?
Or, insulting people’s intelligence?
How about her license to do harm?
Is it any wonder then why democrats have been losing election after election, where over 900 elected democrats have lost their offices since 2008? The “problem” is that democrats are trying to have it both ways and it hasn’t been working out so well.
But then again, we might have to consider that the “party” has moved to the right, and that is not a good thing, as noted by Truthout:
A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested primary. The 2008 economic crisis, the growth of the Occupy movement, the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police, and the Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the nomination over Clinton in June 2008.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas of the Democratic Leadership Council. Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Criticism of the party or the anointed one, is not allowed, got it?
It is odd, that in the 2008 elections, Kos was all over Mrs. Clinton like stink on poo, but now, the 180 about face, well, is odd. Kind of makes one wonder who is giving Kos his talking points, not to mention creates a bit of cognitive dissonance on his positions. Hmmmm…..
The banning of writers here at DailyKos has been a concerted effort to eliminate dissent, something to which goes against the very values in a vibrant democracy, which now days doesn’t include the United States. We see, and have experienced, the wrath of our democratic president when we protest in the street and are brutalized by goon thugs coordinated by the FBI and DHS.
Not to mention our “democratic” president has prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all preceding presidents, in the history of our country. But the torturers were let go, the war criminals were let go, the criminal bankers were let go, James Clapper is still in his job after he lied to congress. When it comes to criminals, our president seems to like to protect them, while punishing those that bring these crimes to light. Equal Justice Under Law, does not exist.
If you want to keep your head in the sand, I reckon that is your choice. But to deny reality, that democrats are lost in the wilderness between democratic principles and Wall Street money’s influence, well that just fucking stupid. The bigger picture is that the rise of Trump, is a democratic party problem they help create by abandoning the base over 30 years ago by the DLC and in the 92’ revolution.
In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton’s hero, Harry Truman, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.