Skip to main content

As a long time and suffering progressive, I would like to analyze the two Democratic candidates from my point of view.  To some progressive is a dirty word, for reason, but it was progressives that gave us the party of the people.  we have long struggled to make this a more responsive government for the people.  Please, before I get any troll crap read what I say about each of the candidates.  Obama will be tomorrow's post.  

Clinton, The Progressive

Oh, hell no! I have heard her called this recently on the tube and in the media.  After much thought I need to ask, what are they smoking?  Whatever it is they need to get off that junk and switch to decaf.  As an ultra-liberal or progressive, if you will, I take exception to Clinton or Obama, for that matter, being labeled a progressive.  I see little in the positions that would lead me or any other progressive to agree with the label.

Sorry, I digress.  Norman Solomon said it right, " But the people who "do consider Hillary progressive" could mostly be divided into two categories -- those who are Fox-News-attuned enough to believe any non-Republican is a far leftist, and those who are left-leaning but don't realize how viciously opportunistic Sen. Clinton has been."  

For that matter neither can Obama claim the handle as a progressive.  But Clinton is the least capable.  Why do I say this?

 Has hawkish foreign policy advisors involved in past US misdeeds and failures
 Supports Israeli aggression and apartheid
 Voted numerous times to continue funding the war
 Supports or won't oppose nuclear power
 Has no meaningful economic program
 Supports capital punishment
 Supports war on drugs
 Supports Real ID
 Supports No Child Left Behind

All of the above positions are as anti-progressive as they come.  NO ONE can claim the mantle of progressive and support the positions that have been supported by Clinton in the past.  If one is a true progressive, it will take lots of thought on where to put one’s vote.  Does one vote to eliminate the Repubs or does one vote one’s convictions.  It will not be an easy decision.  Personally, I want to vote for a democrat.  But so far I have not made up my mind from the existing candidates.

It is, for me, a conundrum, do I vote to put a democrat in the White house or do I vote my convictions.  Yes, I hate what Bush has done to our country.  But will any of the remaining candidates, truly be the savior of our party?

Originally posted to CHUQ on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:03 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you're looking for a savior... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    swampus, Meng Bomin McCain...Jesus has a better chance of appearing with him in office...

    We don't need a savior, we need a leader. You want to advance your progressive ideals, do it. Which leader do you think will be more willing to listen?

  •  Clinton called herself a "modern progressive" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when she was asked in an early debate if she was a liberal.

    Hearing her say that made me choke, because as I see the political landscape she is most definitely a liberal and not a progressive.

    The fundamental difference between a liberal and a progressive is that liberals accept the current powers that be and feel that they can be lobbied and worked with to effect incremental change for the better. The liberal accepts the structures of corporate power and doesn't do anything or propose antything that would rock the boat of corporate plutocracy.

    A progressive accepts the practicalities of power but does not accept the system that allows corporate plutocracy as fundamentally legitimate. A progressive proposes that corporations are too powerful and views plutocrats as inherently bad for democracy. Though a progressive knows that wishing won't make it so, a progressvie still believes that fundamental changes in the system are necessary.

    The health care system is a perfect example of how this works.  The Kucinich-Conyers HR676 Medicare for All, National Health Insurance Act, is progressive because it seeks to change the system of providing health care because it sees that the private for-profit health insurance corporations are bad for the people.

    The plans proposed by Clinton and Obama (Edwards too) are quintessential liberal plans that don't rock the boat of the private for-profit hegemony of the health care system that puts the giagantic profits into the pockets of the plutocrats.

    Botom line, Clinton is no progressive in so many ways.

    •  Are you a liberal or a progressive? (0+ / 0-)

      Just curious.  I've seen a lot of different distinctions made between the two, but it always seems to be those who call themselves progressives who most want to make sure a distinction is made.

      •  That's right. I see me as progressive. (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't it interesting that liberals like Clinton feel the liberal label is too negative and want to be called progressvies while progressive don't like that idea?  Progressive know very clearly the basic and essential distinctions between progressive values and proposals and what Clinton offers so progressives don't want people like Clinton to usurp the political label for her protection. Why should progressives have to find a new label just because people like Clinton don't want to live with their correct labels.

        •  It's a matter of perspective, I suppose... (0+ / 0-)

          Relative to John McCain, Hillary Clinton could probably claim either label.  Relative to Eugene Debs, not so much.

          FWIW, I'm comfortable with either label.  Or both.  Or neither.  By dictionary definition, I more closely fit the liberal label, but I find that my thoughts most closely correspond to those who call themselves progressive.  

          Yet it is still unclear to me why progressives often think it important to make a clear distinction between the two.  There is much overlap even in the dictionary definition.  Not trying to pick a fight with anyone.  It's just a matter of curiosity.

          I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that there might be another artificial boundary popping up on the left.

  •  BTW your list is almost exactly the list I have (0+ / 0-)

    peviously used here to make the same point about Clinton as a liberal and not a progressive.

  •  I fully support... (0+ / 0-)

    nuclear power, and most of the Real ID Act.  
    If people would just get educated about nuclear power, I think we would have no problem with it.
    France, our far more liberal European brother is practically run by nuclear power.  

    You forgot media/broadcasting/gaming censorship...she supports that too.  Which is bullshit.
    Capital punishment, the war on drugs, and NCLB are bullshit too.  
    Damnit Hillary.

    Obama '08, '12

    •  I'm with you too on Real ID (0+ / 0-)

      With proper information and privacy protections, it's nothing more than a common sense, streamlined application of information we already feed into the national system, and the old "Papers please" spook-mongering is the worst possible argument position to hold because it is simply non-comparable.

      A lot of the paranoia comes from misinformation or outright presumption.  No one's demanding a hair sample or DNA, and if Liberals can make fun of unnuanced slippery-slope arguments from the Right, they have no place making slippery-slope arguments from the Left.

      And France...uh...France has a whole hell of a lot of issues with environmental protections.  Just because they're European doesn't mean they're better than us in everything (or most things, that goes for you too, Canada, and your screwed up tritium mining).

      Hell, these are the guys trying to ban headscarfs from public viewing.

  •  Her 60 Minutes Comment (0+ / 0-)

    Refusing to finally and totally put to rest the Obama/Muslim thing, sent me over the edge once and forever.

    No candidate will be perfect.

  •  The DLC'ers have stolen "progressive"... (0+ / 0-) if it were a word with no particular previous meaning, to give lukewarm centrists who want to run away from the word "liberal" something to call themselves.  The Clintons, McAuliffe, Carville, and that  whole gang have absolutely nothing in common with Henry A. Wallace, Robert LaFollette, Peter Norbeck, Theodore Roosevelt, Upton Sinclair, or William Jennings Bryan.

    So we're taking it back.

    Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. --G.K. Chesterton

    by Progressive Witness on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:20:27 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site