We progressives should feel pretty good about ourselves after watching Hillary Clinton's launch video. The core economic theme was there -- most American's aren't getting ahead; the top is taking too much. And the social theme was stunning--a heavy emphasis on the racial and ethnic mosaic that is America, the gay couple holding hands, the strong focus on women and families. Among other things, it was a delicious if belated rebuke to those Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) types of the first Clinton era who disparaged "identity politics."
Clinton cannot sustain this sort of aspirational politics in the more than 18 months between now and November 2015 without getting very specific.
Really? According to whom? Avoiding specifics has worked for everyone from Reagan to Obama, none of whom revealed their actual plans during the campaign (those really being one plan - to do whatever the Wall Street banks paid them to do).
As regular CD readers, we need to get used to these superficial articles which claim to examine a Hillary candidacy in the light of Progressive expectations. These pieces all suffer from the same flaw: the belief that such Progressives have a place in the Democratic Party.
We progressives should feel pretty good about ourselves after watching Hillary Clinton's launch video<< .... No. We proegressive can be proud of ourselves when we refuse to vote for these corporate lackey douchebags. When we actually break away from the lesser of evils paradigm that just mean more of the same. When Jill Stein or someone else (take your pick) earns 25% of the vote, we win even in losing. We actually create something else. I will not vote for her. Not. Ever. And no progressive should. Help to build something else. There will be no change otherwise.
Who says it will be a tough stradle. The Clintons are masters of it. The essence of the strategy, like Obama's Hope and Change, or Bill Clinton's Putting people first is to promise one thing to get elected, count on people to forget what is promised in a year or so and then serve your corporate masters. This tactic works so well that individuals like Hillary are confident they can execute it again. Maybe, given the ignorance and gullibility of the American voter they are correct. If you want to know what Hillary will really do look at the company she keeps--the Robert Robin crowd. Kuttner thinks she can stradle, take their money and do what she promises. All I can say is that this has never worked out in the past and I doubt that it could happen now. The real question is how Hillary has any credibility despite what she promises. Kuttner seems to want to give Hillary another chance. Well maybe it's because he likes writing about how dissapointed he is, a few years after the powers that be sell us out. Comentaters like Kuttner and Reich, for all they sound like they are sympathetic to the concerns of average Americans, are infinitely patient with the ruling elites, content to chastise them, give them another chance, appeal to their conscience but will never promote the idea that these war mongering elites, who view the ordinary citizens as blades of grass to be mowed down if we get too unruly, should be thrown out of power. Why? They are part of the elite ruling class itself and think that if only the 1%, would be a little more enlightened, as they are, everything would be fine.
She can't duck this one. Progressives will hold her feet to the fire and so will her challengers in primary after primary, debate after debate
is this guy for real? This is the same line used when Clinton President and Obama President, that being the progressives would "Hold their feet to the fire". Trillons spent on wars later and trillions spent on bailing out banks and bankers as people get poorer, millions killed by US bombs and the environment ruined and "we progressives" in the USA just have to hold feet to the fire to get change?
Mr Kuttner you are a Democrat. You support a Right Wing Capitalist party that on the side of bankers, the wealthy and the war machine. You are in no way shape or form a progressive.
What's that? The Royal 'We'?
You, sir, are not a progressive. And Hillary Clinton is just another dynastic neo-feudalist.
This is how polling, PR, and mass marketing work:
"If all the people who recognize themselves in this video -- the young, the poor, minorities, single women -- actually get excited and turn out to vote (as they did not do in the mid-term elections of 2010 and 2014), Clinton wins."
Inasmuch as this era of materialism represents the "triumph" of packaging over content, these campaigns of slogans (what Reagan's people termed "sloganarama") devoid of meaningful applications represent the political version of packaging over content.
Just ridiculous. What's pro-oil, pro-Monsanto, pro-war, pro-banksters, pro-corporations and the 1% is dressed up AS a Populist or advocate for women, minorities, and the poor.
This is about as accurate as Mr. Clinton insisting that NAFTA would make FOR jobs. In reality, so many went south of the border and from there, fled to India and beyond in a race for the absolute bottom in both wages and respect for Environmentalism.
Thank you. Succinctly and accurately stated.
Here's Kshama Sawant talking of the lesser of two evils: "if we are going to stay with lesser-evilism, that argument works until perpetuity. It’s never going to be a good time to break from the two-party, or, you know, the two-big-business-party machinery, and build an independent alternative, because you can always make the claim that, well, you know, if we ran a left candidate this year, in 2016, it’s not going to work, so let’s just hunker down and vote for Hillary because she’s better than the Republicans" http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/13/debate_hillary_clinton_sounds_populist_tone
Of course you josh, you're not serious? Is that all there is to politics, is that all there is? If so I think it time to break out the booze, what daya say Mr. Kuttner? See ya at the Green Mill, Chicago,