he Clinton campaign has now spent months trying to convince relatively obscure former Republican officials to endorse her campaign while also adopting many Republican slogans and arguments in her quest for the presidency.
And then there’s the Clinton campaign’s response to questions about large donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments that seem to coincide with the state department approving large weapons deals to dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
There may or may not have been some corruption here, but this kind of makes it sound like the US hasn't been supplying SA with arms for a long, long time. That would be a wrong idea for readers to take away from this piece.
Vote out most incumbents from BOTH parties ... but especially if they do NOT specifically state they are firmly against TPP. The Duopoly is a single corrupt unit.... the Austerity / War party. Vote for Independents or Green. If none for a specific position, then vote for the best candidate based on their known progressive values.
Many writers-especially those with military backgrounds like William Astore and Andrew Bachevich start their articles from the premise that the most well-funded armed forces in the world are losing wars. They want to know how that's possible and look to find more efficacious strategies for winning the wars.
Lost on these true believers entirely is the notion that the wars are not being fought to be won; but rather to be sustained since the money train continues to come down the tracks when there are conflicts underway.
A similar miscalculation applies to writers.
They take Mrs. Clinton at her word for being a Feminist, a Progressive, and a Democrat without considering that the strategy of such a Goldwater Girl re-branding herself (along with hubby) as a Democrat enabled these DLC darlings to GUT the party of all formerly reliably Democratic (pro-unions, a hypothetical brake against the MIC'S ram-like rush into foreign wars, protection of the environment and at least some concern for citizens' well-being) positions and policies.
What if this was a planned inside job?
What better way to deliver the nation to the corporations/1% than by ensuring that both parties (regardless of the illusion of polarity) would serve that small demographic?
Hillary is loyal to big money. There certainly are documentaries that dig up the dirt on the Clintons and their tie to drug-dealing in Arkansas. I viewed the material with a skeptical mindset yet there certainly was lots of corroborating evidence.
Currently, between the Clinton foundation and its financial allies, the speech fees "earned" by Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, and the billionaires she courts (as part of the political quid pro quo ritual) ... NOTHING in this picture shows allegiance to "my father's Democratic party."
Her #2 guy. Her admiration for war and Kissinger.
This is ALL Republican SHIT!
The fact that the Republicans are the laughing stock of the world since the best they can prop up is a clown crossed with a fascist...
As others have noticed long ago, the Democratic party IS the Republican party and what's left of the Republicans, some kind of right wing Christian theocratic assembly of lost (albeit, angry, armed and dangerous) souls.
What a friggin nightmare.
My point is that authors should no longer extend to Mrs. Clinton the dignity of her being remotely Progressive and perhaps it's time to consider that this couple has served as The Trojan horse surprise that gutted the Democratic Party as only an Inside Job (assignment) could.
She is not a Democrat and the DLC is as distant from Democratic party ideals as is plausibly possible.
I think the author is right. Clearly there is an opening to get particularly college-educated Republican voters who find Trump to be frightening but the Republicans should not be given a pass on this. Trump is the logical byproduct of the Republican's southern strategy. The Republicans associated blacks with violent crime, cheating on welfare, laziness, etc. to get votes. They opposed affirmative action as discrimination against whites. And they promised action on social issues but never delivered. When the establishment makes promises time and again without delivering. Guess what. Eventually people conclude they are being taken for a ride and they turn against the establishment. Which can now be seen as dangerous development because the voters have chosen an unqualified candidate who is basically ignoring the US Constitution and is promising something that looks like a police state for the benefit of white people. The Republicans should be held accountable for this.
The republicans are and have been held accountable for this. It's so obvious it doesn't need to be stated... especially on a site like this. What progressive types are saying is that it's high time the democrat party is called out for what they really are. Siouxrose11 does a wonderful job at exactly this a few comments up. It could stand as a rebuttal to all lame comments with the read-between-the-lines message "repubs are bad so vote for for Hillary".
"One has to wonder how much long term damage she is doing to progressive policies by deploying this strategy, even if she beats Donald Trump along the way."
As noted by others, here, this statement assumes that there is a connection between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party and progressive policies. Yes, the Democrats have taken a progressive stand on some selected domestic issues, but it has not been consistent and the party is anything but a gatekeeper of progressive values. As for Clinton, it is criminal and shameful for her to tout herself as a progressive in any way. She is a traditional Republican conservative. Should anyone doubt this, I suggest you read the transcript of the speech she gave yesterday to the American Legion on American Exceptionalism. It is a speech that could just as easily been given by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or George Bush. When it comes to foreign policy, there is only one major party and it is anything but progressive.
I think it can't be stated enough because many Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump. For example, Paul Ryan said that Trump's comment about the Mexican heritage of a judge was racism. Hardly any Republican leaders have ever come to Trump's defense. My view is that the Democrats are not that bad. I think there are a number of positive reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton. Using a broad definition of progressive I think she she can be called a progressive although I prefer someone further to the left. I don't buy the war monger charger. I agree she is more hawkish than most Democrats but I would not call her a war monger. The central focus of her foreign policy is diplomacy. What she excels at is getting people to work together. She seems to be tireless in trying to do that which is a good reason to vote for her. Nobody can expect their candidate to be perfect or to agree with them on everything. In addition she is extremely bright and is a real policy wonk. Her voting record for the most part is good in may opinion. On 93% of votes she voted the same way as Bernie Sanders. And she clearly has a better progressive record on gun control votes than Bernie. I think she is to the left of her husband. She became a Democrat because of the Civil Rights and antiwar movement in the 1960s. She has been involved her whole career in trying to help children. It is amazing how much she help first responders after 9/11, something without getting any publicity at all. Clearly Trump must be stopped as he appears to be a wannabe dictator and is leading a white nationalist movement but even if the opponent was Jeb Bush I think there would be plenty of positive reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton. Jill Stein has absolutely no experience in government and therefore I would never vote for her. I did vote for Rocky Anderson in 2012 but he at least had eight years of experience as mayor of Salt Lake City and seemed to do a very good job. I was particularly impressed by efforts to address climate change and become an national leader among mayors on that issue.
So far, we haven't lost power here yet with rains cascading down.
Wind isn't too bad yet, but I sure fear for tornadoes that show up by stealth under cover of darkness!
Although the author makes it appear that Hillary is the first Democrat attempting to be more Republican than the Republicans, Bill Clinton, John Kerry (in the 2004 POTUS election) and Obama have been just as zealous as Hillary in striving to be more Republican than the Republicans. The DLC play book that all of these players follow has given all of them a legacy to the right of Nixon and pushed the GOP ever further to the extreme right.
If a resurrected Nixon vied for the Democratic Party POTUS nomination he would be considered too leftist and railroaded onto the same castrato bench where Dean, Kucinich and Sanders sit.
Well, seeing as how Clinton is a Democrat in Name Only, all of this makes perfect sense. She's not harming "her party." She's simply openly revealing what her true part is! No surprise for those who have been paying attention all along.
Lrx, you must be a machine, a terminator. You just single-mindedly keep on your talking points and nothing throws you off or stops you.
First off she is not a Dem and never pretended to be one. She is a John Bircher/Goldwater gal and always has been. Along the way she has embraced being a Super Hawk, a Neocon, fully clothed in the Walmart pantsuit of austerity. The DP destroyed itself after Reagan. The RP also destroyed itself WITH Reagan. There is a single one party system that has been in place for decades. There is nothing left to destroy by the country WHICH "both" had been working at steadily. She is merely going to bring about much faster.
Hillary Clinton has said she wants to be President for all Americans, that's not the Common Dreams way. Progressive's only, our sheer intelligence will win them over.
She said she wants to be president of all Americans--and you believe her?? I've watched/listened to her for too long to be taken in by that.
Abby Martin offers three minutes of relevant insight with regard to the early DP years of Hillary and Bill in Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents, from time 7:18 to 10:35.
At time 8:40:
"A younger movement within the (Democratic) party formed to win back the southern vote (from the Reagan Republicans), known as the "New Democrats"; and, it did so through a conservative shift, cancelling out hallmark Great Society economic policies and appealing to anti-black attitudes by distancing themselves from prominent black Democrats; targeting mythical "welfare queens"; and, pushing the so called "criminal reforms" that targeted African Americans."
This, along with "massive deregulation of Wall Street and repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act", was done, hand in hand, with the Republican Congress.
I found it to be a very interesting 3 minutes of video.
Sure you have, I worked for George McGovern, fat lot of good that did. So you want your ideas to prevail, just how will you go about that, limit others speech, limit what they do? Your taken in by your own purity.
So what was so interesting about it? The fact that they won? Winning is everything, you think the Supreme Count appointments won't be better under Clinton. That's what will really shape the next 20 years.
The fact that you state she is a traditional Republican conservative just makes your argument silly. When she was in the senate, Bernie voted with her 96% of the time, what is that for your argument?