Skip to main content

Do progressives want Hilary for President?  No, of course not.  Among other things, she's in the pockets of the GMO industrial complex.  If Barack Obama disappointed us, Hilary may go him one better.  She may horrify us.  Ask yourself: if we have Hilary, will we go to war again?  The answer is almost surely, “Yes.”  Please -- we shouldn't kid ourselves.

All right, then.  What if the Republicans run Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mitt Romney or . . . .?  Are you going to vote for Hilary -- or some protest candidate or what?  We know what happens when we vote for a third party candidate.  Under the American system, it's just a wasted vote.  The sophisticated know this.  Look, even the U.S. Communist Party is supporting Obama.  They don't really like him, but the Communist Party has a long memory.  They remember Germany in the 1930s, and they learned that lesson when the Communists failed to support those who were just a bit to the right of them and they wound up with Hitler.  There comes a point when you must compromise.

Does that mean that we must go for Hilary?  That moment may come, but that moment isn't right now.  Maybe – just maybe – we can come up with a plan for a candidate that isn't Hilary and who might win.  So who might that be?  Bernie Sanders?  Elizabeth Warren?  Someone else?  Who?

My answer: I don't know.  But what I do know is a strategy that might get a progressive candidate elected.  And it doesn't mean trying for a third party.

Basically, it's a three-step process.  The first step is to organize and take over the Democratic Party.  That may be hard, but it may not be as hard as it seems.  If a really left-of-center candidate took on Hilary, that candidate might get some surprising support.  Money bags like the Koch Brothers can't stand Hilary, and they know that she's a threat to the Republicans.  Faced with a choice of Hilary or a candidate to the left of her, some of the real right-wing money might go against Hilary.

And the second step?  Look at the past and don't repeat it.  Don't make the same mistakes that George McGovern or Michael Dukakis made.  We had McGovern running and he lost big time.  We had Dukakis running and he lost big time.  We can't afford to have a progressive running and then a big loss.  But we don't have to set ourselves up to lose.  We can have a progressive leader who shows a willingness to work with the other side and we can go for things that we know Americans really want.

Don't run a naked campaign with just a presidential and vice-presidential candidate.  Instead, run a coalition.  Back the progressive candidate with a true government.  In other words, instead of trying to dump the entire problem on two pairs of shoulders, show the voters in advance the people who will be running the government.  If we had Bernie Sanders running, then we should also have (maybe) Elizabeth Warren running with him, plus about five or ten others as part of a public team.  Select the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and the Attorney General up front.  Add the head of the EPA, Health and Human Service, Education, and so on.  Have those people stand up and say where they want the country to go.  

And who should those people be?  Pick real experts who have no ties to Wall Street or major corporations.  And don't be afraid if one or two are liberal Republicans.   Real, honest, liberal Republicans.  In other words, maybe this could be a real coalition government that might bridge the gap and get things to happen.  Or is that too much to hope for?

Then have a real platform that means something.  Don't try to have a ten page document on every subject under the sun.   Pick five major issues for the country and say how the government will deal with those issues.  For instance, election reform could be one.  The platform could make it a priority to get rid of the corruption politics that is strangling our country.  73 percent of all Americans want to repeal Citizens United.  

Make it a priority to have economic equality and end the extreme difference between the uber-wealthy and the rest of the citizens.  (How about promoting the “Robin Hood” tax of .01% on all public stock transactions.  Make an exception for purchases through ERISA plans, or by individuals with less than  a million dollars in assets.  Or whatever).  Or perhaps there could be a really steep income tax on gross income of over a million dollars in a year (not including sales of principal residences).  Another big issue could be significant government investment in infrastructure as a way of getting the country moving again, creating jobs, and spending the money taken from the uber-wealthy.

And then the third step: organize.  Organize marches at the local and state level.  Pick someone who will speak reality in Ferguson, MO, so that those people go out and say, “That's who we want.”  Have a national get out the vote campaign.  Get people out in the streets and into the voting booths.  And make very, very sure that there aren't vote stealing machines sneaking away the election.

In other words: we don't need Hilary and we don't want Hilary.  We want a government by the rest of us, not by the 1%.  And, like or not, Hilary represents the 1%.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  It's 2014, dude (6+ / 0-)

    Not 2016 or even 2015.

  •  meh (11+ / 0-)
    Do progressives want Hilary for President?  No, of course not.
    nate silver:
    As my colleague Harry Enten pointed out in May, Clinton has generally done as well or better in polls of liberal Democrats as among other types of Democrats. Between September and March, an average of 70 percent of liberal Democrats named her as their top choice for the 2016 nomination as compared to 65 percent of Democrats overall. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted more recently showed Clinton with 72 percent of the primary vote among liberal Democrats as compared to 66 percent of all Democrats. And a CNN poll conducted last month gave her 66 percent of the liberal Democratic vote against 67 percent of all Democrats.

    The CNN poll is slightly more recent than the others, but if there’s been a meaningful change in how rank-and-file liberal Democrats perceive Clinton, you’d have to squint to see it. Perhaps more important, it’s extremely rare to see a non-incumbent candidate poll so strongly so early. In the earliest stages of the 2008 Democratic nomination race, Clinton was polling between 25 percent and 40 percent of the vote — not between 60 percent and 70 percent, as she is now. Clinton could lose quite a bit of Democratic support and still be in a strong position.

    it is what it is. if you want to find an alternative, try it. but don't kid yourself that there is widespread dissatisfaction about hillary among liberal democrats.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:30:24 PM PDT

  •  Wake up from your dream now, hey! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bahaba, harrylimelives, Remediator

    First you say

    We can't afford to have a progressive running and then a big loss.  But we don't have to set ourselves up to lose.  We can have a progressive leader who shows a willingness to work with the other side and we can go for things that we know Americans really want.
    and then you follow it by choosing Bernie Sanders as your candidate, as if he would have a bigger chance to win than Dukakis or McGovern did.  If you are looking for a progressive leader willing to work with the other side, you have that already in Hillary Clinton.   But you reject her.  It is delusional to think that Bernie Sanders can win a national election with a ready-to-go cabinet of political unknowns.  

    You have written three diaries since you arrived here a few weeks ago and have made no comments in your own or any other diary.  You aren't going to get a lot of traction for your ideas by just cranking out diaries and running off.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

  •  This sounds like a contradiction. If a progressive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David54

    leader is willing to work with the other side, how he/she will be different from Obama or Hillary? And if this leader is not willing to work with the other side, he/she can't get elected.

  •  JC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OooSillyMe

    I thought there was a moratorium at least until after NOv. 4....anyone else and you get R. Paul, C. Christie, P. Ryan, R. Perry...take you pick...name someone else because it wont be a Dem...how do you think SCOTUS will look in 4 years?

  •  I am a progressive... (7+ / 0-)

    liberal, Socialist.

    And I'll be quite satisfied with Clinton as the nominee and the next Peesident.

    I guess it's because I don't give a shit about GMOs.

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them - Thomas Jefferson 30 July, 1816

    by Roiling Snake Ball on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:08:38 PM PDT

  •  This fall is first. The Senate is up for grabs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, OooSillyMe

    We need to keep it.  It wouldn't hurt to have a much bluer House as well.  

    And let's dump several exceptionally miserable GOP governors, too, as long as we're in town.  

    After that, 2016 primary talk will begin in earnest.  We'll see who's in and who isn't.  Democrats will vote.  Somebody will emerge as the nominee.  

    I'll vote for that person.  No matter who the Pukes run.  

    "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

    by Remediator on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:27:53 PM PDT

  •  Beware of "committed progressives" (7+ / 0-)

    who arrived here a month ago ready to dispense the advice that we should not support Hillary Clinton.

  •  Right now am thinking of 2014 and (0+ / 0-)

    working to replace Cuomo with Teachout. After that. I will focus on getting rid of the Clinton dynasty.

  •  If you write about her (4+ / 0-)

    It is a professional courtesy to spell her name correctly, throughout your diary.

  •  I think this diary is unfair. (0+ / 0-)

    It's unfair to the many smart and sensible people who are, for whatever reason, hostile to Clinton's candidacy.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:05:37 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the laugh. (0+ / 0-)

    That was really charming and amusing.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:15:08 PM PDT

  •  First thing's first. (0+ / 0-)

    Step (1): Oust as many GOP Governors/State legislatures/etc. as possible this year.

    Step (2): Retain the Senate, and hopefully gain at least a few seats in the House.

    Step (3): Start worrying about 2016.

    Note the lack of "???" steps in there.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:57:01 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site