Skip to main content

In my Sunday essay Hillary Clinton and a left flank: How a Clinton presidency could redefine progressive governance, I argued:

there is another benefit for progressives to a Hillary Clinton presidency, a less fettered ability to establish the left flank of politics outside a Democratic White House/ [... whereas ] the establishment media presented President Obama as the left flank of American politics.
David Sirota, like many others, argued in 2009 that "[Obama] was far and away the best and most progressive person for the job."

That simply is not how Hillary Clinton is or will be perceived. Consider this CNN article published today:

[S]urveys also suggest the base of [Clinton's] party is drifting leftward, away from the centrism that defines Clintonian politics.[Emphasis supplied.]
There are many aspects of the Clinton potential presidential candidacy that are historically anomalous - she stands n a unique place in history,  but I would strongly argue that her favorite status does not derive from her positions on issues.

There s room for the establishment of an independent, influential Left Flank centered in the progressive elements of the Democratic congressional caucus and in outside groups. There is a great chance that a President Clinton will neither establish nor be seen as establishing the progressive position on issues. Her favorite status is decidedly NOT an endorsement of the Third Way.

This strikes me as a potential benefit to the progressive movement.

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

  •  From where I sit, Hillary Clinton is a (4+ / 0-)

    convenient focus for those who absolutely have to think about the top instead of attending to reforming Congress into an institution that actually provides stewardship for the country and knows which way is up.
    The problem with a goodly number of the poobahs on Capitol Hill is that they have only one interest -- their own tenure in office, a continual ride on the gravy train. Those individuals have to be removed, regardless of which transport animal they identify with since they are only in it for the ride.

    Buck the freeloaders!

    by hannah on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 06:28:30 AM PST

  •  How is that a positive? (8+ / 0-)

    All it will do is permit Clinton to triangulate like her husband.  And leave progressives in the wilderness.

    Your argument is too cute.  By more than half.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 06:33:15 AM PST

    •  It's a positive because (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lady Libertine, CenPhx, buckstop, Penny GC

      progressives get to define the left Flank, not centrists.

      Today, Obama defines it. He's a centrist.

      As for whether it would be better to have an actual progressive president, well duh.

      But I don't think Clinton is beatable in a primary. Maybe a credible progressive candidate thinks so. We'll see.

      I doubt it.

      So the question will become how you react to the Clinton candidacy.

      I look for constructive approaches.

      •  Priorities USA bailing on 2014 races isn't exactly (5+ / 0-)

        a positive development on this issue.  Obama's heaviest hitters have now moved over to HRC, and those hitters will be keeping their powder dry until 2016.    It's not really a surprise--I don't recall Team Obama doing much for Senate and House candidates in 2012.

        As a recovering political junkie, bobswern's "Deep State" diary reconfirms my existing questions about the efficacy of my decades of political involvement.   One thing that I have no questions about is the lack of commitment here to the party as a whole.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:14:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought the thinking was (0+ / 0-)

          Priorities wanted to get out of the way for 2014 and felt its activities were diluting the effort?

          As for the commitment to the Democratic Party, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you advocating for a third party approach? I think that doesn't work in the United States given our current system.

          •  Priorities USA is hoarding its $ for 2016 (5+ / 0-)

            I'm not a big Steny Hoyer fan, but I agree w/ him here.  

            I didn't say anything about a commitment to the Dems.  My concerns at this point are about the ability to meaningfully affect the Deep State through our existing political system.  This snippet from the Moyers interview of Mike Lofgren illustrates my core concerns:

              It costs $400 by the time the Pentagon finishes paying contractors to haul one gallon of gasoline into Afghanistan. That’s a real extravagant amount of money. In both cases of the national security state and the corporate state, they are sucking money out of the economy.

                As our infrastructure collapses, we have a Tinkertoy power grid that goes out every time there's inclement weather. Tens of millions of people are on food stamps. We incarcerate more people than China, an authoritarian state with four times our population. Does anyone see the disparity between this extravagance for the Deep State and the penury that is being forced on the rest of the country? That isn't a natural evolution. Something made it happen.

                We're having a situation where the Deep State is essentially out of control, it’s unconstrained. Since 9/11 we have built the equivalent of three Pentagons around the DC metropolitan area, holding defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and government civilians involved in the military-industrial complex. There are over 400,000 contractors, private citizens, who have top-secret security clearances.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:00:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Defeat is a constructive approach? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, sny, CenPhx, aliasalias

        I swear the one and only way you get progressive policy is to elect progressives.  

        My data point is the 2010 election for governor in Minnesota.   The party had some centrist ready to run.  Can't even remember who.  Dayton, a liberal with access to lots of his own money, decided to run a lot of TV ads saying if you elect me I will tax the rich and do a bunch of other liberal stuff.  All the stuff the establishment party has schooled itself not to say out loud.  This prove amazingly popular with the base and so the centrist was defeated in the primary.  

        He was elected governor (right across the border from WI) in 2010.  Compared to the wacko Republicans the folks thought he made common sense so they rewarded him by throwing the Republicans out of both houses in 2012.  He then signed bills to add another tax tier for the very wealthy, froze tuition, passed some labor laws, and passed marriage equality.  Even the centrists in the party followed his lead when they saw he could get away with it.

        I believe he's polling about 58% now for reelection which even resulted in the notoriously risk averse centrist Senator Klobuchar actually sending out e-mails saying he makes "smart choices".   Wow!

        That's what you get when you primary the centrist and elect a progressive -- progressive policy and cowed centrists.

        •  Defeat? (0+ / 0-)

          Only if you make it so.

          I propose a different approach to the battle for the issues, not the pols.

          You are hung up on the pol, not the issues.

          •  I agree with what you want to do but (0+ / 0-)

            I believe electing Clinton makes it more difficult.   Yes, we need a stronger more cohesive left in and out of Congress and the statehouses but electing Bill Clinton didn't make that happen so I don't see that electing Hillary is going to do it either.

            I mean look what happened to Gore.  Clintons didn't want a challenge to Bill's legacy.  They didn't want Gore going off to the left.  So he wound up running a risk averse nothing campaign that the Clintons probably loved.  It defeated him but it didn't challenge the House of Clinton.

            •  It wasn't (0+ / 0-)

              the Clintons. It was the news media that trashed Gore's campaign.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:56:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't tend to blame the media (0+ / 0-)

                They follow and of course they're increasingly corporate agenda driven but the candidate has to be able to penetrate that barrier and communicate directly to the people in a way that they find understandable and convincing.  Gore seemed to be held captive by his campaign.  Clinton and Reagan were unusually good at selling any message.  The Obama campaign is an example of a campaign well designed to sell a candidate who is really not that great at speaking directly to the people.  The campaigns were works of art but he has trouble in press conferences or speeches to the public.   I don't blame the media for that.  I mean, yeah, Fox, but otherwise no, you have to be able to talk over their heads.

                •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  you're actually backing up my claim that it was not the Clintons. I'm also not saying that Gore didn't make mistakes he did but the press put out something like 2/3 negative information on him and 1/3 on Bush.

                  I agree with you on Obama's inability to speak to voters. The whole speech thing left me cold in 2008. Nothing wrong with making speeches but it seemed that's all there was.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:47:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Good for MN (0+ / 0-)

          But unfortunately what works for MN does not work in other states. You have to take it on a state by state basis with that kind of thing.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:20:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it would work more often than centrists (0+ / 0-)

            tell you.  You do need the right candidate and access to money to promote the message.

          •  What you are ignoring (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Is that populist, progressive positions poll extremely high, across the board. If a politician were to run on these positions, instead of making excuses for why they can't, I think that politican would win in a landslide. In other words, stop sliding towards the "center". People may call themselves republicans or centrists, but the positions they support are populist.

            Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

            by CenPhx on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:42:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Even here (0+ / 0-)

              in GA? That is kind of my point. It might work in some or even most but certainly not all. I know those polls are NATIONAL polls that show that but I would like to see one state by state.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:52:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'll grant you the argument that the progressives will be able to define ourselves, but what does that get us?  The pundits and the talking heads are ultra-right leaning for the most part, with those centrists out there being labeled as "liberal."

        Hillary Clinton has no incentive to espouse anything progressive -- she would end up being a modern version of her husband: a business-friendly DINO whom the Republicans will hate only because she didn't come up through their ranks.

        -9.88, -7.44 Social Security as is will be solvent until 2037, and the measures required to extend solvency beyond that are minor. -- Joe Conanson

        by wordene on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:46:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But you don't need to win, to win (0+ / 0-)

        You just make sure she has some strong competition from the left.  They don't need to win.  They just need to move her leftward, in the process creating a credible future progressive candidate.

    •  I'd have to echo the argument made by Paleo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, greenbell

      in that Hillary was more the political strategist in Bill Clinton's campaigns than he was himself.  Triangulation is her work and main operating environment.  I don't believe that a run in the Senate and then a turn at the State department has moved her any further leftward than in the past.

      Furthermore, since the punditocracy are they themselves centrist at best (and that is being kind), she has no impetus to become more progressive.

      -9.88, -7.44 Social Security as is will be solvent until 2037, and the measures required to extend solvency beyond that are minor. -- Joe Conanson

      by wordene on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:39:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The right wing noise machine (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fenway49, Armando

    is unlikely to drop the "Democrats are extreme liberals" mantra anytime soon. Despite her record, the GOP will do a terrific job of blasting her as a far-left liberal and they are quite good at getting the media to at least frame the situation as "two sides of an issue". So the media meme will be "Hillary - is she a centrist or a leftist radical? We'll let you decide". The right is just not going to concede that Hillary is a centrist, and by picking and choosing a couple of issues to focus on her record in which she actually is a liberal, they'll get their message out. If they can convince 55% of people that Obama is a socialist, why in the world will Hillary be immune?

    The reason this could be bad for the left is if her White House's positions were to be considered liberal by a large chunk of Americans, the actual liberal position will look extreme. So all of our positions take on a radical taint.

    That said, I'm 100% on board with Clinton. She is by far our best (most likely to win) candidate, and we can't fuck around when it comes to the possibility of electing a Republican again.

  •  I think 90% of Hillary Clinton's platform (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Deep Texan

    will be populist and progressive, especially in the current environment and with polls supporting a progressive agenda on these issues.  Gay Marriage, raise the minimum wage, extending long-term unemployment benefits, Immigration policy with path to citizenship for undocumented Immigrants, reproductive rights (Roe vs. Wade, late term abortion, etc.), "equal pay for equal work", food stamps/SNAP, EITC, and so forth.

    Some issues are open and could be disagreements between her and another possible candidate, but we don't know yet:  What is her stance on the NSA surveillance issue, for example?  That needs to be fleshed out.  

    She has recently positioned herself on the "let diplomacy do its thing" side on the Iran issue, putting her to the left of the 15 Democratic Senators (including Kirsten Gillibrand) who instead sought to impose tough sanctions on Iran, which would have undermined the diplomatic efforts, stopped them in their tracks, and put us on the fast track towards war with Iran.

    Howard Dean is laying out where things stand from the Progressive perspective:

    Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who sought the party's presidential nomination in 2004, said he expected Hillary Clinton to face a primary challenge. But Dean predicted she would "satisfy a large number of Democratic voters, including a large number of progressives."

    "There are going to be issues where there is disagreement on. You can never please everyone," Dean said. "The people who are not going to be pleased are well-organized voices and not a lot of votes."

    Asked whether he was considering another run, Dean was blunt: "Nope. Not as long as Hillary's in."

    While I agree that a Clinton presidency would give the left a more defined stature than with the muddy perceptions Obama gave us, it is, IMO, again, perception more than  reality that makes that happen, because on the majority of issues (not all) she is already known to be on the Progressive side of the equation.
    •  If Clinton does adopt progressive positions (0+ / 0-)

      then these will become "centrist" by virtue of Clinton's adoption of them.

      •  She has. And, what you are talking about is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, Armando, tomwatson

        perception, not reality.  

        Make a list of the 20 issues progressives care about the most.  Hillary Clinton is on the progressive side of the equation on at least 80% of them (as per her Senate votes, issue statements, etc.)  In the current environment (post-Romney's 47% remark, people's growing perception that income inequality is growing and needs to be rectified, etc.) she is probably going to be campaigning on even more Progressive issues and values than would have been the case 8 years ago, but that puts her at odds with a "pure" Progressive candidate on only 10% of issues at the most.   I don't think that is enough to make a huge difference, which is why Dean said what he did about her satisfying a large number of Progressives.

        I agree that her perception amongst many on the far left is that of her as a Centrist, but not only does that not meet the test of reality as we can discern it from her voting history in the Senate, but her campaign will more than likely be waged on meticulously poll tested populist and with that (in the current environment) highly Progressive values, which will then "satisfy a large number of Progressives," as predicted by Dean.

        Kos thinks she will be a "great President" not because she gives us a flank, but (I believe) because he thinks she will be with us on many of our issues from the get go, and can be nudged towards our side even more when poll after poll shows that certain issues that were previously controversial have become populist no brainers.    

        •  Perception matters a lot unfortunately (0+ / 0-)
          •  Once Hillary Clinton announces that she runs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC

            two things will happen:

            1. Elizabeth Warren and Howard Dean will endorse her, and they will both be calling her a "great Progressive."

            2.  Heads will explode on DailyKos.  

            •  I agree with that if not with support of Clinton (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sny, CenPhx, aliasalias

              I don't buy Armando's argument.  The Clinton machine will try to prevent any block in the party from having any input on policy before the nomination (witness the draconian effort to avoid even token challenge from the left), during the campaign and if she wins while she is in office.

              They are going to want TOTAL CONTROL of the agenda and in forming her legacy.  Any form of dissent will challenge the "heroic" legacy they intend to build.  House of Clinton wants its full 4 terms in office.  They are entitled to it.  You aren't going to get in the way of it.  You aren't going to oppose it.  

              •  Where (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger

                are you getting this stuff? No one is preventing anybody from running but 1. most candidates realize that Hillary has a base of support from 2008 and people are clamoring for a female candidate. E. Warren does not want to run and Gillibrand wants Hillary to run. Maybe you could recruit Boxer (probably not since she's semi related to Hillary) or Diane Feinstein to challenge her?

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:33:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't even buy this clamoring for a woman thing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I mean, wow, why didn't we elect Jill Stein or Michelle Bachmann?  

                  I think that is just one of the many versions of spin that we are getting spun from the Clinton machine.  

                  It must be a woman!  Sheesh, I guess I am just so old because I just lost the feminist chip on my shoulder about 25 years ago.  

                  Why?  I mean wouldn't it be something if Americans figure that after 8 years of an African American they want to go back to a white guy?  That would not surprise me one bit.

                  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                    first of Jill Stein didn't make a blip on the radar and she was a third party candidate and Michele Bachmann was a republican and republicans are not clamoring to have a female candidate though they seem to be clamoring to have an African American candidate.

                    You don't really think that women feel like they were denied in 2008? I certainly personally know many who feel this way. Maybe that's just anectdotal or maybe it's not. I know the GOP's war on women has seemed to intensify that desire.

                    I'm sure the GOP wants to go back to a white guy. The GOP actually wants to go back to the 1950's or even before.

                    Why not a woman?

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:52:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't feel like I was denied (0+ / 0-)

                      I vote on policy.  I voted for Obama because I didn't like HRC's position on Iraq.  I mean if you don't think Iraq is a women's issue wander on over to your local VA hospital and see all the mothers caring for their wounded sons and daughters.  Women are the caregivers and war drafts them into a lifetime of caregiving.  

                      I could support Warren on policy.  I have never believed she will run.  But I see no point in voting only because the candidate is a woman.  Obviously, you aren't going to vote for Bachmann or Palin.  I guess I just worked long enough to have plenty of both men and women managers and gender didn't have a thing to do with whether they were good at it.  But if you want to vote based on competence and experience, HRC leads the pack for sure.  I just don't trust her on policy.  She could change my mind if she bothers.  But I'm not real keen on voting for the Democrat most likely to be effective in getting entitlement cuts through Congress or most likely to go to war with Iran.

                      •  You (0+ / 0-)

                        see. Obama played you for a fool with that war vote and that is why I don't care about it. At least you know where Hillary stands and plenty of people were backing Obama because of their desire to have an African American president or so I was told by many Obama supporters back in 2008. After watching Obama for six years it's obvious that he would have voted for that war and sounded like Joe Lieberman doing it.

                        Yes, competence is important to me. Maybe she will change your mind or maybe she won't. Frankly I did not start out liking her in 2008 and really did not care for her that much but she changed my mind. That may happen to you or it may not. I'm not going to be pulling any you have to vote for her or else junk. It's your vote and you can do whatever you want to with it. Did you vote for Jill Stein in 2012?

                        Hillary is not going to go to war with Iran. She is not for entitlement cuts. Obama was for them back in 2008 yet you supported him? It can't be that big of an issue. As a matter of fact he really ticked me off when he talked "entitlements'. He sounded just like a Republican.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 11:55:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  The score is 44-0 (0+ / 0-)

                    That's why.

                  •  Bachmann? Wow. The crazy one? (0+ / 0-)

                    The country is ready for a woman President, and HRC fits that bill like no other.  So, you are not buying it.  Most would disagree with you.  "Back to a white guy" when they have an accomplished woman who is extremely popular and happens to be a Progressive on 85% of our issues as a choice?

                    Obama got 56% of the women vote.  It does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that Hillary Clinton will get that and at least 4% more.  60% of the women vote going for us is lights out for the GOP, likely up and down the ballot.  

                •  It already looks like (0+ / 0-)

                  Brian Schweitzer from Montana is going to run on HRC's left. He probably won't do that well, but it will be good to have someone pulling on her in that direction. He'd also be a not-bad VP pick.

                  Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

                  by milkbone on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 10:50:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good for him. (0+ / 0-)

                    I know his support of fracking turns a lot of people off. Are you sure he would be to her left? I really do not know that much about him.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 11:57:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  To her LEFT? I don't think so. (0+ / 0-)


                    He has a 100% rating from the NRA for his stance on gun control.  NRA president Wayne LaPierre (yes, that crazy guy) even travelled to Montana to campaign with and for Schweitzer.   He is staunchly opposed to any kind of gun control, even the common sense ones like closing gun show loopholes or limiting the amount of metal piercing bullets (so called cop killer bullets) one can buy in one swoop.   He signed an array of NRA bills into law, and in 2009 he signed one of the first "Stand your Ground" laws in the country, refusing to reconsider even after his own Democratic Party implored him to.

                    Also, this:

                    On the environment, Schweitzer has similarly been far to the right of the Democratic Party, and he isn’t sorry about it. He blamed “jackasses” in Washington for the delays on the building of the Keystone Pipeline. While Western Democrats have a tradition of producing some of the party’s greatest conservationists, including Secretaries of the Interior Stewart Udall and Bruce Babbitt, Schweitzer has gone the other direction. He has been one of the strongest advocates for expanding coal production, with extensive plans to ship coal to China. That plan has been met with fierce resistance from groups such as the Sierra Club. Western Democrats have a rich tradition of being the vanguards of the party’s environmentalist wing, but Schweitzer does not fit there.

                    Rather have O'Malley be the VP pick than Schweitzer.  

              •  If she is with me and progressives (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger, Penny GC, tomwatson

                on 90% of our issues, I'll be fine with 2 terms in office, up to 4 Supreme Court justice replacements, etc.  I think you are overstating the "arm twisting" part.  I don't think that people like Dean and Warren are just going to go along because they were told to "or else."   I think she has genuine support amongst the Progressive leadership community that she built over many years, and if they are going to cash that in when push comes to shove, there is really nothing wrong with it.  

        •  Hmmm. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx, wordene, greenbell, aliasalias
          1. Banksters' rampant criminality and growing control over commodities as well as continuing wild speculation
          2. The Eternal War on Everywhere, from boots on the ground through bombs from the air through destabilizing other nations
          3. Globalization's destruction of our incomes and industry.
          4. Multinationals and banksters buying politicians
          5. The evil effect of Free Trade Agreements
          6. The Stalker State, both its governmental and corporate arms
          7. The continuing corporate depredations on nature
          8. The inarguable, manifest, failure of Privatization, Deregulation, Trickle-Down, and Free Trade and austerity in it's many forms

          I mean, these are only things at the core of our current swirling down the toilet bowl, so maybe aren't proper for us mere citizens to think about when discussing politics.

          But I can't see how, in anyone's wildest imagination, Hillary would short the interests and priorities of our elites in favor of the people's interests regarding any of these things. Certainly, more 'social issues' but ignoring that we're all going down the tubes together, regardless or race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.

          I'd bet that, once again, we'll see an election where not one thing bedeviling the nation and its people is addressed openly and directly.

          Of course, there is the all-important perception issue: Are we a nation which will let people of varying genital sets hold the highest office in the process of handing total control over to the elites, or not? There's our forthcoming big 'issue' in the Clinton-Bush (or other) campaign.

          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:39:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've hit the big ones for sure (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jim P, aliasalias

            I mean, yeah, HRC will be terrific on the little stuff.  She'll have a bunch of little female friendly issues that will be great on The View and The Talk and don't you dare mess with them or they'll call you a sexist for sure!!

            But WAR, ENTITLEMENTS, TRADE, LABOR not so much.

  •  still early for this gnashing of teeth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Penny GC

    if you don't want Clinton, then get your candidate into the focus. if you have no candidate then get out of the way.

    if you have no interest in voting with and supporting Dems, then what are you doing here?

    Our focus now should be on midterm elections. Primary season is over and 2016 is still too far away to be wasting so much time talking about it. We have a bunch of candidates that need our support all over the country. Control of congress is considered a tossup. So no matter how right any of you think you are, we have to deal with the reality(nightmare) of a Republican congress.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:31:30 AM PST

  •  No reason to believe HRC will be progressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim P, CenPhx

    There's no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will be progressive, even if she does have an assertive progressive movement monitoring her.  

    I suggest reading Bob Parry's piece on her tenure at the Senate and at State. This is entirely consistent with my experience with her actions at State, which I monitored during the overthrow of the president of Honduras. My reluctant conclusion is that she enthusiastically approved of the coup, even if it was actually planned and conducted by the military/CIA. At the very least, there were quiet actions that she could have taken that would have made it far more difficult for the coup to succeed.

    Her approach is described by Parry as neoconservative-lite. That's consistent with what I saw.  So, while I will vote for her if nominated, I will--regretfully-- not vote to get her the nomination. I do not trust her to care about anyone except the powerful.  

    •  She's a politician (0+ / 0-)

      Not a bad actor.

      There is a difference.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:56:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you mean by "bad actor"? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        My conclusion, after having studied this extensively (the links are provided in my comment below to floridageorge), is that:

        It is the conclusion of this report that the decision to remove Zelaya from office most likely began within the US military and/or the CIA and/or the DEA in 2007-8. The motivation was most likely ideological, trying to reverse the Bolivaran tide in Latin America. One can not exclude the possibility that preserving the narcotics trade was not a consideration, but so far there is no direct evidence of this. The press has speculated that the point man to carry out the removal was Colonel Richard Juergens [who is believed to have directed the ouster of Haitian President Aristide].
        Hillary Clinton was probably the strongest Administration advocate of [the illegal] removal [of President Zelaya], and was cynically indifferent to the means used. She only wanted to limit the damage to American "smart power." Following her admission of the obvious, i.e., that this was a coup, she and the State Department quickly abandoned Zelaya and even tried to turn him into the culprit by criticizing his decision to re-unite with his family in his native land.
        So, what's a bad actor?  Is it someone who initiates and plans a coup? Hillary is, in my estimation not that.  Is it someone who is willing to use their authority (in the Millennium Challenge) to sustain a coup?  Hillary Clinton is that.

        Americans who are not familiar with the history of Latin America are unaware of exactly how bipartisan US policy toward the region is, and always has been.  

    •  Your perception about an event in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      Honduras (which looks like a gut feeling made into reality in your mind, based on personal dislike) notwithstanding, your perception that she won't care for anyone except the powerful seems "off the rocker."  

      She has always advocated for the least powerful amongst us, children, battered/abused women, the extreme poor, etc.  Her tireless work with the Children's Defense Fund is well known.  Her book "It takes a village to raise a child" is a de-facto progressive manifesto on the role government plays when it comes to protecting the welfare of everyone, especially the poor and defenseless, for "the common good of our society."

      I don't mind differing opinions, but don't go trying to rewrite history here.  We know her quite well as a true children and women advocate, after all, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable.

      •  Your comment deserves to be HRed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It is not acceptable to say that someone is off their rocker.

        I have written over 20,000 words on the Honduran coup and Secretary Clinton's possible role in it. You can find my analysis here:

        Part 1

        Part 2

        Part 3

        Part 4

        Part 5

        US Ambassador calls removal of Zelaya a military coup

        Wikileaked cable on the roots of the coup

        You owe me an apology.

        I also hope that other members will HR your comment.

        •  I never said YOU, just that the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          stated perception is.  And i was not talking about the Honduras thing but your statement that she would only care for the powerful.   She is our likely nomimee, and whatever grievances you have with her, in light of her decades spanning work for children, women and the poor/disadvantaged, you are not speaking truthful here.  Maybe you don't appreciate her methodology or exact direction, but she has always been, at least in part,  about the common good,.what benefits the most, especially the most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

          I think the venom has to stop, this is not some right-wing blog with crazies making wild, unsupported accusations.  Disagree with her all you want, but at least acknowledge that she has some good sides, amongst them how much she has cared for children, battered women, etc.   Otherwise, what the hell?  We are about to make the devil incarnate our nominee, knowingly, and pretend to like her, admire her, in some fashion?   That makes no sense.    

          I personally think it is bad form to deny her the dignity of acknowledging the decades she worked on these types of .issues, but note that I am describing a particular statement or idea, not you yourself as a person.  It wasn't aimed at you, if you misunderstood it as a personal thing, that i can say i am sorry for.

          •  A non-apology apology is not acceptable. (0+ / 0-)

            It is not acceptable to use ad hominem rather than answer well-documented facts that you find inconvenient.

            It is not an apology to say that you are sorry for me misunderstanding (!) what was clearly a personal attack by you.

            •  Here is the thing (0+ / 0-)

              I have nothing to apologize for.  You falsely accuse me of telling YOU that YOU are off YOUR rocker.  In fact, I did no such thing.  I was talking about a statement you made.  I wasn't even addressing your Honduras thing (not interested in your theories.)    So, once again, I HAVE NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR.   You should, instead, apologize for accusing me of something I did not say, and anyone with sense can look at my post and see for themselves.

              Now, I am done with this nonsense.  I find your attacks here ridiculous.  Please note that I did not call YOU ridiculous, but your ridiculous post is, well, ridiculous.  I was being nice when I  surmised that you merely misunderstood the context, because in reality your misguided and false claim is devoid of any truth, and should be more aptly called what it really is.  

              BTW, you don't even address my post in which I pointed out where your post went all wrong.  Why not spend all that energy rebutting my points instead of getting into all this other stuff?

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    this could be a big bonus for liberal policy. I don't use the word progressive because it has been ruined by Obama. If she passes liberal legislation but is percieved as a "centrist" then she has moved the center a great deal to the left.

    All that being said I am glad that we are actually discussing policy and we are not hearing about unity ponies and PPUS and singing kumbaya with the GOP. Hillary is partisan. She will not hide from the D label and will wear it proudly. There will be no "Hillary for America" no labels crap.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:17:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site