2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFive Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton
Well, this says it all.
Damn valid points!
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
1. Foreign Policy - As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians. In her recent memoir, Hard Choices, she bragged about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state. These crippling sanctions are a form of collective punishment and have benefited the wealthy only, while making life miserable for everyone else. In an interview with Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg in August 2014, she further outlined her views on Iran, staking out a maximalist position on Iranian nuclear enrichment, which effectively opens the door to military intervention. She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. Not surprisingly, her bellicose rhetoric has received praise from neocon luminary Robert Kagan.
2. Economy - Her recent foray into vague populist rhetoric notwithstanding, Clinton has long nurtured close ties to the financial sector. Over the course of her political career, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have been among her top political donors, in addition to giving heavily to the Clinton Foundation. In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. It's understandable then that her friends on Wall Street would be quick to shrug off her halfhearted attempt to shore up her left flank as anything but substantive. Nobody who was genuinely concerned with economic inequity would be hobnobbing with some of the same economic institutions whose reckless financial schemes helped engineer the 2008 economic collapse. Hillary Clinton has a long history of being willing to serve the interests of large corporations. In 1976, while serving as legal counsel for the Rose Law Firm, she represented several Arkansas utilities companies that sued the state after a ballot initiative (sponsored by conservative boogeyman Acorn) passed that decreased utilities rates on Little Rock residents and increased them on businesses. In defending the utilities conglomerates, she argued that the initiative amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The judge ruled in these companies' favor.
3. Environment - As Grist magazine reported, during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton took an active role in promoting hydrofracking worldwide through the Global Shale Gas Initiative. Clinton's State Department, and in some cases she personally, lobbied on behalf of companies like Chevron intent on expanding the practice, particularly in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there was widespread public skepticism. This lobbying was met with mixed success, as Chevron eventually pulled out of Bulgaria due to a moratorium, while Romania's moratorium was repealed following US lobbying. Since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has continued to express support for the practice, which she outlined in a September 2014 speech to the National Clean Energy Summit. She has also remained disturbingly silent on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.
4. Civil Liberties - Hillary Clinton is the last candidate you should expect change from. In the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act as well as its subsequent reauthorization. In an appearance in April 2014 at the University of Connecticut, she defended NSA surveillance and chastised whistleblower Edward Snowden, accusing him of supporting terrorism.
5. Culture Wars - Clinton has a long history of cynical pandering on hot button social and culture war issues. As a senator, she frequently co-sponsored legislation that would make many on the left cringe. In 2005, she joined a bipartisan group of senators in signing onto the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which, according to the ACLU, would effectively have legalized discrimination. Later that same year, she introduced a bill that would have made flag burning a felony.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)TO KEEP THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE PRESIDENCY!
artislife
(9,497 posts)NO WAY.
All of those are real issues because we have been short sighted and haven't dealt with anything long term. Well, our planet is suffering because of it. How long until we self terminate the human race by our actions, especially our environmental actions?
But placing bets on sure things is preferable?
SMH.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Conservatives are Republicans. What else is there?
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:57 PM - Edit history (2)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)for many years. I consider myself a moderate democrat because I don't agree with all of the liberal agenda. What I read on this site makes me more of a democratic moderate. FDR is turning in his grave.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)But I'm hoping it won't come to that.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)
DinahMoeHum
(21,789 posts)n/t
well, when it comes down too it....its going too be 1 democrat vs 1 republican. If the democrat is not your man or woman, then you really have too ask....what is going to be worse for me, my kids and our country, electing this democrat, or putting in a republican. Look at is very closely this way...either one will be most likely replacing one or 2 Supreme court Justices, maybe more. Ok so let's say the new president is God forbid.... Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or any running.... with a Republican held House and Senate, do you really think the new Justices are going to be anything else be a radical right wing conservative.....I highly doubt it. With any of these republicans, do you have any doubt, ACA, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Gay rights, senior rights, Latino and other immigration rights will be gone?..... So voting for the dem you don't like may not be the only reason to vote for him/her
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)It would be a Sanders vs. a Hillary for Presidency. With Sanders representing the moderate/left version of Democrats, and Clinton representing the moderate/right version of Republicans.
As it is, if Hillary wins, which frankly, will probably happen, as she has the money, the media love, and name recognition, then it will pit her against Crazyville. She can then "safely" move even more right if she wants and STILL seem the "moderate" choice.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is no longer a problem.
There is no need to nominate Clinton.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)a repeat of 1972. Now you personally may feel that they have no reason to fear a repeat, but they disagree with you. And their position does in fact have some amount of logic behind it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That has been the strategy for two decades now, look where it has gotten us:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027317879
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Obama, to the best of my knowledge, was elected twice and had net gains in congress both times. But don't let silly facts get in the way of an argument.
eridani
(51,907 posts)But don't let facts get in your way here.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)1972 was caused by the party elite deserting McGovern.
The name of the group they started was Democrats for Nixon.....
The only way Sanders would loose in the General is if the DNC bungles the Democratic Party support.
A repeat of 1972 only happens if the Party sits on its hands.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This is the time for a progressive populist government. Look at the history. Look at the present. Look at the wave of young people backing Bernie.
Hillary may do well in the polls, but in a time of change as drastic as we are experiencing, it will be a question of who is excited enough to get out and vote, and not of who is doing well in the polls. I will vote for other Democrats, but I will not vote for Hillary. Many people who want real change will, unlike me, just stay home and not vote for Hillary or anyone else.
1968 and 1972 were the beginning of the end of a long liberal era that began with the election of Roosevelt in 1932, just 40 years earlier and that began to move toward conservatism with the election of Eisenhhower in 1952. (Eisenhower would be a Democrat by today's standards.) Kennedy was elected on charisma in 1960. The country was still liberal, but beginning to become more conservative.
Goldwater ran in 1965. It was the era in which the John Birch Society and the neo-conservatives undermined the appeal of liberal thought as much as they could. (We did not call them neo-conservatives then.)
The 1972 election was the moment at which the anger of segments of the population about anti-discrimination legislation and frustration over the Viet Nam War led to a Republican victory. From there, the country inched toward a more and more conservative government. Jimmy Carter was a respite, but since Reagan was elected, even the Democrats have been conservative compared to FDR, Truman and LBJ's domestic policy.
It's time to return to our liberal roots. Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the rest were the liberal revolutionaries in terms of public policy of their time. That is our heritage. America has traditionally been the place where humans experimented with liberal social ideas. We should continue to be that.
Hillary is, in her thinking and political philosophy more of the Reagan conservatism lineage.
It's time to meet the new economic and social reality of our time with new solutions. Bernie is offering that.
When our country was young, settlers could claim land, pay at most very little for it, and if they cultivated and kept it safe and useful for society, it was theirs. We were in that sense a socialisty state from the beginning. We did not sell the land to a few fat-cat landowners. We allowed those who wished to have it and use it well to have it and use it. What could be more socialist than that? No lords and ladies -- the norm at the time in Europe. Just people sharing the land and making something of it, helping each other build houses and barns, selling and buying what they could produce and what they could import. That was life in the new territories of the north. The South repeated the same old social structures of Europe worsening it with slavery who were even worse off than European peasants and the serfs of the Middle Ages.
So it is time for a move toward populism. It has been 35 years since Reagan took over. 43 since the conservatives took over in 1972. It's time for the country to accommodate the new reality: we have become a society in which huge corporations own much of our land; we are a nation of debtors, not a nation of investors or capitalists; many, a large percentage of us survive based on our intellects, our education, our technological skills and not based mostly on our physical strength or skills.
In the early days of our country, our government gave those willing to work the opportunity to have land. It is simply right and in the tradition of our country that today, those willing and able to work should be given the opportunity of education and assisted in establishing themselves in using that education. That's how our country became great, and that is how we can remain great.
Healthcare is also basic. We should all help make healthcare affordable for each of us. We need to reform our legal system so that we have a healthier society. Prison is not the solution to crime. We need to find out what would be a better solution to crime.
Economic disparity is dividing our society and creating a helpless underclass. That is not the American way. When we tolerate that kind of economic disparity, we are betraying the principle that our country is founded on: that we are all created equal. We don't have to have the exact same amount of money or economic power, but we do all deserve enough equality to make every life one of dignity and self-respect. We need a society in which we work together and see each other as valuable, equal individuals. We do not need a society in which the rich run everything from our schools to our churches to our government. No way. That is not the American dream.
Hillary does not represent a movement toward the kind of America that we need to be at this time. Her policies are sort of begrudging approaches to problems that she does not see as the fundamental social problem that they are. She takes the bandaid approach to improving the world. She has no far-reaching vision for our country. She just wants to make do, kind of hobble along. That is not what we need.
We need Bernie with his appreciation for the dignity of every human being and with his challenging ideas.
Flag burning should be a felony??????? That's your Hillary.
State college education free for everyone. That's the modern version of giving land to those who want it. That's my Bernie.
You and others who are backing Hillary because they fear the Republicans need to vote according to what you think is right and not in order to avoid the Republicans.
The entire Democratic Party needs to get behind the change we need in this country. We just lost in Virgina and Kentucky. We are not offering voters the kind of government that is needed for our time.
Bernie is offering to start the revolution in our country so that we can have government suited to our present society and not something that sounded good in 1972 and 1980.
Bernie is the winning candidate for 2016.
JEB
(4,748 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)He's polling at 8% among Af-Americans and 17% among women. Over.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)As this makes no sense.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)And conservative Dems like yourself can't stand the fact that Bernie has Republicans and Indy supporters. It drives you guys crazy because Hillary DOES NOT.
MH1
(17,600 posts)I like Bernie. But I recognize that there's a helluva lot of Dems who like Hillary better. If that changes and Bernie gets nominated, great. But Hillary is still a lot better than any of the Republican nutjobs.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that we never get a really good, really liberal candidate, therefore we must hold our noses and vote for the deeply-flawed Democrat in order to Beat The Republicans(tm).
Now that we actually have a really good, really liberal candidate with no major flaws, you all cling to the flawed candidate - and, further, demand that we do so as well.
You are insisting that we vote for the lesser of two candidates in the Primary so that we must vote for the lesser of two evils in the General.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)How wonderful!
If that's the only reason why, you can expect a loss in the general.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)That too! 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"Later that same year, she introduced a bill that would have made flag burning a felony."
Quoted from the OP.
That's as Republican as it gets.
Hillary campaigns on the premise that money is speech, but flag-burning? That's a felony.
Makes no sense.
Hillary is a Republican. She thinks and votes like a Re;publican. She is a Republican.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is a leader
Hillary smart
Hillary is a fighter
Hillary is a loyal Dem
Hillary is for the American people
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)will screw us just the same.
It's just a question of how much lube, but we will get screwed.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My conclusion is that neither of them is at all left wing or progressive. They are at best moderate, right of center Democrats.
But that said, which GOP candidate would you prefer to see appointing justices to the SCOTUS in the event of a GOP victory?
really...we haven't been pounded on the head with that one?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Off year elections generally see a significant decline in Democratic voting. To speak bluntly, when old white people make up a large proportion of the voters, bad things happen. (I say this as a 64 year old white male.)
The gerrymandering that took place in this country subsequent to the 2010 elections, gerrymandering that virtually assured a GOP House majority at least through 2020, could not have happened if the same voters who elected Barack Obama in 2008 had bothered to vote in 2010.
That consideration is why I join many others who talk about the importance of voting. A non-vote is basically a default vote for the GOP, in my view.
artislife
(9,497 posts)according to some by not embracing h and her "protection" of us.
BS.
really
Bernie Sanders, he has all of us in it together. He actually treats people according to the content of their character and is dissed for it.
SMH
Oh, I am voting, I voted on Tuesday of this week, too. That is the worry, not that people won't vote, but that they will. And they will use their voice.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you wrote:
according to some by not embracing h and her "protection" of us.
BS.
that is an interesting viewpoint. That any politician can or could be a savior or protector of people. When people learn that they can accomplish things only by sustained, collective action the country will change. Not before.
Workers did not advance as they did in the 1930's through the 1970's solely by voting Democratic, but by organizing, unionizing, and striking.
SO I think I understand what you are saying, but I still feel that non-voting in the election is a bad choice because of the real possibility of a SCOTUS that is even more activist and fascist than the current Court.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)really on the side of consumers workers and the environment, or would they be a pro-Choice, Pro-Corporate pick?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)on the post 2016 election composition of the Senate. Yet another reason for all Democrats to actually vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Wall Street wins either way and it gets tiring voting for not nearly good enough to thwart dreadful.
Go Bernie !
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)face palm. shoot yourself in the foot. keep doing that and someone to the Right will win but I'm not sure the Hillary camp cares. at this rate neither do I. but I can go back to being an independent if the party veers far right suddenly although Progressive is a bit annoying. Liberal is the proper word..
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)F 'em.. They don't want to support the eventual nominee? Then they are part of the problem. I don't want to hear shit about their faux "concern" for BLM if they are willing to let SCOTUS go wingnut. Allies my ass.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Do you give a shit about workers rights, wages, concentration of power vs. democracy, monopolies vs. competition, regulation of business to prevent abuses, regulation of the financial sector to prevent a bigger economic crash, etc.
If you think the "progressives" are just a tiny minority of the population, and the issues involved are irrelevant......well, I'll hold my tongue.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hillary supporters aren't writing articles calling on voters to not support the Dem nominee, whoever it is.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Also, there are several HRC supporters right here at DU who had sig lines declaring that they would only vote for a 'real' Democrat in the General.
After Skinner's explanation of the TOS, they quickly changed them.
So, it goes both ways.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I keep hearing this talking point yet it seems that isn't quite true.
Why do you think Dems constantly lose elections in the heartland with running blue dogs? Hmmm? Put up a progressive candidate and watch them win. You'd think the DNC would learn by now after having its ass handed to them with so many losses.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)enough. Neither makes any sense. A progressive will never win in a conservative area and the opposite is true.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sure and keep losing the heartland with generic DINO's who can't inspire a rock.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)You mean thinking about things like;
Single payer health care?
Same sex marriage?
Relief of student loan debt?
Increase in social security payouts?
Feeding the homeless through a massive urban garden program?
Re-habing abandoned houses for homeless shelters?
Ya, pretty out there isn't it? lol
DINOs are dying, the ideology is rooted in conservatism. They're literally dying off due to old age. Times change, people change, we're now a progressive leaning country.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Where is the money going to come from.
I know your answer is taxes on wealthy or Wall Street but that won't happen unless you get a liberal Congress. And a liberal Congress will have to be voted in. To do that you need public financing of elections.
None of that will happen in 2016.
You need to begin to play the long game like repubs do.
You need to see your goals not as a benefit for you but as a benefit to those who come after you. It has nothing to do with DINOs or old people dying out.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... in the same election in which our corpo-Dem gubernatorial candidate lost to Scott Fucking Walker, for chrissakes!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Bernie will be crushed in my state(TN). Putting up a hard left candidate for a statewide office here would be folly.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)We have allowed them to define us and keep trying to find candidates more palatable to people who have bought into the propaganda they have been spewing unchallenged. Meanwhile they keep moving the goalposts. You're not going to change that overnight and you're not going to change it by continuing to field ever more conservative csndidates.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)about Joaquin Castro too along with his twin brother, Julian.
Bernie however isn't a hard left candidate, he reflects how many leans.
That's a typical RW and Clinton supporter talking point.
According To Polls Most Americans Are Socialists Like Bernie Sanders
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/03/polls-americans-socialists-bernie-sanders.html
More and More Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders, and Not Just Those Who Identify With the Left
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/more-and-more-americans-agree-bernie-sanders-and-not-just-those-who-identify-left
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)these ARE issues... never mind.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The fact that the Republicans are so far off the rails is the ONLY reason anyone should consider her.
Pretty fucking sad.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Sigh.
And this morning, go out to get the paper and the house across now has a...Hill yard sign.
I put up my Bernie window and yard signs a few weeks ago...must have pissed off the woman there. At least I don't have to worry about talking to her...maybe a year and half ago, she just stopped talking to me. Even when my Mom passed in January, I'm crying telling her as I was going to the funeral home...and she just looked at me....no I'm sorry...nothing. Weirdo.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you really think posts like this will get tens of millions of people to change their vote? When did that ever occur in the past?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Go Team...
Or something...
randome
(34,845 posts)There are battles to be fought, still, but Sanders versus Clinton doesn't seem to be one, IMO. We have to deal with reality. That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy but unless someone has a plan to change tens of millions of voters' preferences, it seems to be the reality we're stuck with.
Why engage in useless vitriol? (Not you, personally, I mean in general.) It won't change anything except, perhaps, the shape of one's head. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But, no, posts here at DU will not sway millions.
randome
(34,845 posts)He has his own kind of charm but I don't see that's enough to break through. We all want things to be different and better. IMO, Clinton already has this sewn up. We don't need to do anything to support her other than to vote (and some of us won't even do that) but tearing her down when she's very likely going to be the next President can come back to bite us, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
blackspade
(10,056 posts)We should all avoid fucking our chances of winning the next election no matter who our candidate ends up being.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)But I was *this* close to changing my vote. *This* close. An embedded video would have put me over the top.
George II
(67,782 posts)....is in the OPINION section.
I could probably do a similar piece about Sanders except that here it would probably be hidden.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)The facts are all right there as they pertain TO HER VOTING RECORD.
Apparently you Hillary supporters refuse to come to grips with her voting record and her stances.
It is what it is. And it's ALL there.
Sorry but it's pretty well spelled out. No progressive should be supporting a candidate who isn't.
Go ahead and put one up about Bernie, if you're even able to find 5 things.
George II
(67,782 posts)h ttp://www.truth-out.org/o p i n i o n/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
Enough said.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Editorials be damned!
Oh look, an opinion piece!
No, pundits, Hillary Clinton isn't collapsing
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0927-trippi-clinton-strength-20150927-story.html
See what I did there? Does that then mean that the article also isn't legit?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Hard for me to stomach those stances. In particular I'm against hydrofraking due to potential water supply contamination and increased earthquake activity.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)She will be the Democratic nominee. Barring some miracle, something that would make me believe in God, Clinton will defeat Sanders for the nomination. I'm not taking the Bernie 2016 sticker off my car, but that's the way it looks right now. We should continue to promote Sanders, and we should continue to criticize Clinton for not being a real progressive, but we should do so in positive terms. And we need to lean on her to get more progressive on some of the issues you mention.
1. Foreign policy. That one is a lost cause. Clinton is as hawkish as GW Bush, and very likely to invade some small. defenseless nation to give them a taste of American shock and awe. What we need to do is elect some decent members of congress, people like Bernie Sanders, who will refuse to vote her a blank check like she helped give to GW Bush.
2. Economy. Another lost cause. She's tied in too closely to large financial interests to do anything useful in the way of reform. What we have to do is hope she remembers and heeds the advice of Molly Ivins, who was told by a Texas Democrat, "You got to be able to take their money, drink their liquor, screw their women, and then stand up on the floor of the legislature and vote against them." This advice may come in useful in getting her to veto some of the very, very bad legislation we know is coming from the Republican congress.
3. Environment. Well, she opposes the Keystone pipeline, a least for now, and that's a sign of progress. She might be open to supporting expansion of the National Park system, ad that sort of thing. As long as it doesn't scare her big donors, she might go for it.
4. Civil liberties. Clinton should be very good when it comes to supporting civil rights for minorities. Even though she was a late comer to gay rights, she has always been a supporter of other civil rights, particularly for black Americans. We may be able to get the Voting Rights Act back again. Yes, she may support expanded spying on us, the people in general, but this sort of a bi-partisan issues, with opposition coming from surprising places, and congress may not be in the mood to give the three letter agencies more power to snoop on us. So it might not even come up.
5. Culture wars. I think the culture wars are just about over, at least on the federal level, and our side won. Clinton would never sign anything like DOMA, even though she liked it when her husband signed it. She has evolved on that issue, and she does not dare devolve. I expect to see the same pattern on things such as trans-gender rights: opposition, ambivalence, support. Once public opinion moves, she will move with it. Same idea for decriminalization of hemp, an similar issues.
In sum, she will be a president who follows public opinion, and that's a mixed bag. We will never see any progress on foreign policy, capital punishment, and similar issues where public opinion runs 60/40 or 70/30. In other areas, she's more subject to influence, and may even show real leadership, if she's convinced it's safe, and she can get the American people to come around. So we might see her get out front on some issue like federally mandated vaccinations for children, or something like that. We will never see her adopt a solidly progressive agenda, but look how far she's evolved in the last ten years or so. She can even make a credible claim to be a real Democrat.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)is to find out how stupid my fellow Democrats think I am for realizing that Sanders will not be on the ballot in Nov 2016. In fact, I don't even need to log in; Sanders' acolytes are happy to rec a flurry of anti-Clinton threads and keep them on the front page 24/7.
So here's a sincere "thank you" for your tireless efforts to belittle and alienate. Just as long as you remember to vote for Clinton in the general election.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
1. Foreign Policy - As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians. In her recent memoir, Hard Choices, she bragged about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state. These crippling sanctions are a form of collective punishment and have benefited the wealthy only, while making life miserable for everyone else. In an interview with Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg in August 2014, she further outlined her views on Iran, staking out a maximalist position on Iranian nuclear enrichment, which effectively opens the door to military intervention. She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. Not surprisingly, her bellicose rhetoric has received praise from neocon luminary Robert Kagan.
2. Economy - Her recent foray into vague populist rhetoric notwithstanding, Clinton has long nurtured close ties to the financial sector. Over the course of her political career, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have been among her top political donors, in addition to giving heavily to the Clinton Foundation. In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. It's understandable then that her friends on Wall Street would be quick to shrug off her halfhearted attempt to shore up her left flank as anything but substantive. Nobody who was genuinely concerned with economic inequity would be hobnobbing with some of the same economic institutions whose reckless financial schemes helped engineer the 2008 economic collapse. Hillary Clinton has a long history of being willing to serve the interests of large corporations. In 1976, while serving as legal counsel for the Rose Law Firm, she represented several Arkansas utilities companies that sued the state after a ballot initiative (sponsored by conservative boogeyman Acorn) passed that decreased utilities rates on Little Rock residents and increased them on businesses. In defending the utilities conglomerates, she argued that the initiative amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The judge ruled in these companies' favor.
3. Environment - As Grist magazine reported, during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton took an active role in promoting hydrofracking worldwide through the Global Shale Gas Initiative. Clinton's State Department, and in some cases she personally, lobbied on behalf of companies like Chevron intent on expanding the practice, particularly in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there was widespread public skepticism. This lobbying was met with mixed success, as Chevron eventually pulled out of Bulgaria due to a moratorium, while Romania's moratorium was repealed following US lobbying. Since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has continued to express support for the practice, which she outlined in a September 2014 speech to the National Clean Energy Summit. She has also remained disturbingly silent on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.
4. Civil Liberties - Hillary Clinton is the last candidate you should expect change from. In the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act as well as its subsequent reauthorization. In an appearance in April 2014 at the University of Connecticut, she defended NSA surveillance and chastised whistleblower Edward Snowden, accusing him of supporting terrorism.
5. Culture Wars - Clinton has a long history of cynical pandering on hot button social and culture war issues. As a senator, she frequently co-sponsored legislation that would make many on the left cringe. In 2005, she joined a bipartisan group of senators in signing onto the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which, according to the ACLU, would effectively have legalized discrimination. Later that same year, she introduced a bill that would have made flag burning a felony.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)which fly in the face of many of the specious claims above.
This week's PPP poll shows her favorability is highest among those who describe themselves as "very liberal" but also among Democrats across the spectrum, which no doubt is an ongoing source of frustration for Karl Rove and co. As for "progressive," that term has been so sullied in recent months, I doubt it will ever recover. It's literal meaning is to move forward, yet many who claim that mantle openly seek to take the country back in time.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Policy was decided based on what was best for the public and not who had the fattest bank accounts and most lobbyists?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Please, by all means. Tell me what year or decade you would like the country to revert to.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Financial industry and the New Deal in the 30s. Civil Rights legislation in the 60s. Environmental protections up through the 70s. Disability rights right into the 80s. Since the money-chasing era from Clinton onward it's all been about privatization and what's best for "business."
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The question wasn't name a few episodes in history that resulted in legislation you admire. It was what period do you want to return to? The New Deal? When the majority were denied equal rights, when New Deal programs were deliberately denied to most people of color? You do know the point of the New Deal was to save capitalism, right? It wasn't noblesse oblige. It was FDR stepping in to try to shore up capitalism in order to protect a system based on profit and exploitation. It was a time of massive public protest, in which the Communist Party played a key role in leading people's movements. FDR, like a good populist, coopted that movement and served the interest of the ruling elite by maintaining the capitalist economic and social order.
The Civil Rights movement was likewise a popular movement from below. It was not government acting for the benefit of the people. That does not now nor has ever existed in this country. The powerful respond when they are forced to, when they have no other alternative. The capitalist state does not now and has never served the interests of the people. That notion is a product of American mythology, part of the cultural hegemony that justifies the state that ensures capitalist exploitation.
The current era of neoliberal capitalism generates a new series of contradictions that exposes fissures in the capitalist system that is its very nature exploitative: inequality is inexorable to capitalism. The difference today is that capital is increasingly global, loyal to no place or nation. SCOTUS decisions like Citizens United, Buckley, and others have exposed the cash nexus between state and capital. It is not that the relationship did not exist in the past, but that it has become more obvious in recent years. Today we have lobbyists and investment banks; a century ago it was manufacturers and railroad tycoons; and for the first part of the 19th century it was slaveholders and the large landholders in the North. For much of our nation's history, liberty and opportunity for white men was made possible by the subjugation and enslavement of the majority, whether African slaves, immigrant laborers from Europe, impoverished working women, or Native Americans. Today being born into the white middle-class is no longer a guarantee of privilege and comfort. That group is starting to experience a bit of what it is like to live in America, and they don't like it.
It's one thing to point to corruption in the current system. Most of us can agree on that, but when people openly long to go back in time, it is often experienced as hostile and exclusionary by those of us who did not fare so well in the good ole days, who were deprived both basic civil rights and economic opportunity. When that is pointed out time and time again yet people continue to long for those days, it begins to appear that the exclusionary nature of such calls is not incidental. That it is accompanied by an unprecedented level of antipathy toward a black president, major female presidential candidate, and activist movements like BLM further underscores that impression.
Note: I am not accusing you personally of any such tendencies. I am just pointing out that I don't think it productive to focus on a restorationist agenda. Rather, I'd like to see a focus on how we can improve our present and future. Besides, going back in time is impossible. It's not going to happen, so why alienate people by expressing such longing?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Because I know exactly what you were fishing for. I can admire a time when government was free to pursue policy that was meant for the betterment of society without being blind to the awful things that were going on at the same time.
We have made progress in some areas and have backslid horribly in others. Government chained to the will of big money will do NOTHING that is not for the benefit of that money. And you, fighting for politicians like HRC, are fighting to keep it that way.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)considering the article sites specifics. It's one thing say you're going to do this, it's another to actually do it. Marketing 101.
Now about those polls and favorability.
Hillary is basically a -5.5
Bernie is basically a +5.5.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)My point was based on a recent poll of Democrats.
And yes, polls are not elections themselves. That we shall have to wait and see.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You need a coalition of voters to win in a general. Expect a loss of Hillary is the nominee.
eridani
(51,907 posts)What has she ever done for women in Iraq?
lark
(23,102 posts)Let me give you a bunch of reasons to vote for Hillary in the general:
Trump
Carson
Christie
Bush
Rubio
Kaisich
Paul
Fiorina
Graham
Huckabee
and I know I'm forgetting some of the less memorable clowns.
If you sit out the general, you are putting one of the above list of asses into the presidents' office. Live with yourself if you can, you will be screwing over millions of people in your purity. Yes, Clinton is more corporate than I like and I will vote for Bernie in the primary. However, I do not think he will win the nomination and I will not let a R win by default and will vote for the Democratic candidate in the general. I would hope all real Dems feel the same.
azmom
(5,208 posts)mvd
(65,174 posts)Especially on foreign policy, where I am concerned she would be to the right of President Obama. If she voted for a misguided and illegal war once, she may again. At least Obama knows not to do really rash things that could cause trouble.
On economic matters, I doubt if her cabinet would be more even more corporate than Obama's, or if she would be even more bank friendly. Yes, she has more ties, but she has broken with Obama on things like the TPP.
Fracturing is a concern because of how she lobbied on behalf on companies. That is not the change we need.
I also don't think she would do enough on civil liberties. And yes she hasn't lead on social issues - the death penalty being another example.
BUT, there are two reasons I would support her:
1) We can not afford President Trump/Carson/Rubio!
2) The Supreme Court
MisterP
(23,730 posts)especially from the faction of the party that's spent 20 years passing laws from the Gingriches and Rubios, and that pushed the party into approving Slappy
mvd
(65,174 posts)I definitely prefer Bernie, but I just can't risk not voting for and supporting Hillary if she wins the nomination. W almost destroyed the country, and all but Kasich and Jeb seem even to the right of W.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)for real change swatted out of their hands by the people who have the money and have the power
mvd
(65,174 posts)Hopefully in an election year we will again have good enough turnout. Even if the Repukes run an anti-establishment person, they all have their weaknesses to exploit.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)The drone defense claim harks back to a specific time when Clinton defended the drone program after it was criticized after a senior leader in Al Qaida was killed by a drone.
So by attacking Clinton on this YOU and the authors of the article are saying that we should let AQ leaders walk away when we have them in our sights. I am not sure the 3000 people who died on 9-11 and their families would be so gracious. Yep, in this specific case, YOU are defending terrorists. You really should read what you link to.
Also, the Afghan surge worked and allowed the US to scale back it's troop presence.
In Libya the US helped get rid of a brutal dictator and gave the Libyan people a chance at self determination. All without the loss of a single American life.
The sanctions on Iran got them to negotiate and gave the US and it's allies a trump card to play in the negotiations. You criticize her for being a hawk AND complain when she uses non-military means to resolve a serious conflict. Pure hypocrisy.
So I have checked out just section 1 and found it to be mostly slanted BS.
I might a go at the other sections tomorrow.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)Generally speaking you are correct, but I said "specifically". In this case the "evidence" cited does not support the OP's claim and equates to saying "it's ok to give AQ leaders a pass".
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Maybe you'd prefer to continue the status quo of nothing getting done and us sinking farther and farther behind in world standings. Nobody has time for blue dogs. Go ahead and support a DINO who aligns themselves with Republicans on MANY issues. No thank you.
