Home | About | Donate

Clinton Must Go Bold – and Go Left – For VP


Clinton Must Go Bold – and Go Left – For VP

Richard Eskow

Word is that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will announce her vice presidential choice on Friday, and rumors that she’s going with a “safe” pick should worry Democrats. In this political climate, a search for “safety” could put her candidacy in serious danger.

Change vs. the Status Quo


It is not going to make a difference as long as Hillary Clinton leads the ticket.
Conservatives, Liberals, and Progressives all dislike Clinton.
Liberals and Progressives dislike Trump.
The result is that as long as Clinton leads the ticket, Trump will win the election.

Most principled voters will refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and will instead vote for candidates like Jill Stein (myself included).
But again, the result will be a Trump presidency.


The public is served up a shit sandwich (in the form of allowable White House applicants) and pundits tell us how best to season it ... for mass consumption.

It's pretty understood that most Trump supporters mostly support this odious figure to keep Hillary out of office; while many Hillary supporters likewise lend her their votes to keep Trump out.

That's the election equivalent of the nation experiencing a bad divorce that's being negotiated by high ticket divorce attorneys.

It's a mess and it stinks to high heaven.


Enough already with this nonsense about VP!

Friday can't come soon enough.

But then the talking heads will move on to another delusional gab about the significance of the choice, and yet more misplaced and futile optimism for the progressive cause within the Dem machine, as if that's ever going to be allowed.

Green 2016


Hillary could do what Adlai E. Stevenson did, he let the Convention decide his running mate. Ain't gonna happen but it might provide some excitement.


I didn't think a Trump presidency was possible, but the Hillary nomination has assured it.
Even with endorsements from Obama, Biden, Warren, and Sanders, Hillary's numbers are going nowhere.
Her unfavorable/favorable numbers remain in Trump territory. She clings to a very small lead in national polling. Trump hasn't even started his attacks yet. His upside is much greater than hers.


Blah blah blah blah blah.


Clinton is incapable of "going bold" "going left" or going anyway but corporate, corrupt, and complicit - she has no vision but political manipulation, the essence of deceit - no regard for anyone but herself & crime family, much less the "progressive left" or any issue remotely meaningful or critical to the millions that demanded real change and supported Bernie and our political revolution. Boy-howdy, that conniving manipulator really knows how to do "party unity" don't she?.........

The RepubliCon performance is so.....astonishing and delusional....and its actors - the top-dog who is exhibiting signs of cognitive dysfunction and the fascist twins Giuliani and FB Christie take the cake for political ranting fantasy - Giuliani doing his paperhanger impersonation and the FB his usual arrogant obnoxious criminal self.......

The more this year of farce and betrayal and stupidity unfolds, the more I am disheartened, infuriated and disgusted...........the way things are going we will be lucky just to survive.......Bernie we really needed your grounded honest presence......


Is there some part of the fact that Clinton is toast, and has been since day one of this election process, that this Eskow guy doesn't understand? America simply is not ready to elect anyone that far right wing.


The "good doctor" offers a powerfully incisive diagnostic analysis of the USA, today:


I would like to read articles with these two headlines and topics:

1) Clinton must go bold -- and STEAL the election! (Again.)

2) Clinton must go RIGHT...to jail!


Jeeze, can't you guys (CD) just stop with these joke articles about what Clinton "must do" to be a success?! Clinton can never be a success for us; she is inherently a complete failure and slap in the face to any even remotely "progressive" values. These stories keep on coming about her most appropriate VP picks and platform positions, and it is all just totally ridiculous. The minutia of her campaign are no more relevant to us ("progressives") than are those of the Trump campaign.


Kaine, Vilsack, Warner - boring and dangerously corporate status quo.


My thoughts were much the same. Invariably, opinion pieces about how corporate Dems "must" pay attention to their left are grounded in wishful thinking. Ever since Democrats for Nixon, we've known what they will do, and it's no use acting surprised when they offer nothing to liberals except an opportunity for silent obedience.


It doesn't matter to me who she picks, I won't vote for them.


Hi bystander,

I agree with most of your comment.

However, to the list of those who dislike Trump, I'd add Wall Street, the banking/finance industry, and the military/espionage sectors. I've seen a lot of negative comments from these folk regarding the atmosphere of instability resulting from Trump's impulsiveness. For this reason, I think Clinton is bound to win.

Regardless, I'm with you in voting for Jill Stein and continuing community organizing efforts.


Warren means that Hillary would say goodbye to her Wall Street bribes, but maybe she can make a deal and get them through the Clinton foundation.


Not at all. More than likely, it would mean that Warren is now ready to accept Wall Street backing. The Veep has no influence whatsoever, anyway.


As far as I'm concerned the witch could pick Bernie and I still wouldn't vote for her.
How much has Biden actually done? If she picked a progressive that would agree to be her VP they would be silenced and ineffectual.
All these survey's keep showing up in my email asking would I vote for her if she picked this one or that one, it's a joke. It's like the first part of the kids book, Green Eggs and Ham, I would not do it this way or that.
She is the DNC's candidate, let them put her in there, she couldn't get my vote no matter what she did.
Jill Stein will though.


Like most others here, I think it's a waste of time and effort to write about Clinton's choice for VP. It will have as much bearing as, say, what color of dress she's wearing on a particular day. Oh, wait, I forgot...for a lot of America's shallow voters...the latter probably counts a lot.
Personally, I hope she doesn't pick any progressive...or that anyone of the like who's asked would turn it down; because I don't want to put lipstick on a pig in order to sell it as human.