As a strong challenge from the left emerges in the form of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, who was once thought to be headed for a coronation in the Democratic presidential primary, has tried to recast herself as a progressive champion.
There is no reason to elect 'the most electable (see most money) candidate this year. I've heard that even a ham sandwich could beat one of the republican clowns. This is the year to vote your heart and for what you really want!
Let's vote for a progressive! GO BERNIE!
Should a politician be held to their record? Or is it all up for grabs and means nothing. What they have voted for in the past has no bearing on what they will vote for in the future? Does a former member of the board of Walmart become a champion of the working class because... she says she is? Or because she can show where she has been such a champion in the past? Support Nafta? Does that count or doesn't it? Vote for Bush's war? Does that matter? Do the dead and maimed matter?
Politicians say what they need to say and people should not let them slide on their record. By what else do we have to go on with Hillary? Where are her positive talking points in her record? The trade deals she didn't support? Where is Hillary's record of progressive things that she has represented with more than just talk. Where are Hillary's facts on the ground so to speak?
What is so special about Hillary other than she is a woman? Oh right she was married to Bill. Well Nafta Bill wasn't so great anyway! And Margaret Thatcher was a woman too.
hot topic - Once again even when the article is about Hillary, someone who claims that they aren't one of her supporters (or worse) starts tearing down Bernie!
Where does Bernie come into this article about Clinton?
Nowhere.
JohnnyJames - Over and over again even when the article is only about Hillary you have to chirp in with something that trashes Bernie. Why mention Bernie at all? Look at hot topic... what a hypocrite. Progressives are not stupid guys. Hillary must be getting more and more desperate day by day.
Can somebody answer me this question... What is so great about Hillary anyway?
A strange article in that 'flip-flopping' - as it is described - is actually what true representative democracy would be all about.
It's symptomatic of our orwellian reality that this is seen as a sign of Clinton's failings. There is no shortage of other reasons to not vote for her, or any of her kind, without attacking her for 'blowing with the wind'.
In a democracy, elected officials would listen to voter preferences and simply act accordingly. Of course, it would not be for such officials to pretend anything other than that they are simply carrying out the people's wishes. Stating that one has intentions other than to carry out the people's wishes destroys the idea that one supports democracy, even if one presents oneself as a so-called Democrat.
The article effectively takes Clinton too seriously in trying to discredit her.
Like so many in 'the business', she is pursuing her own political glory - full stop.
hot topic - Was this article about Hillary or not? It sure wasn't about Bernie and it sure wasn't about the candidates in general ...it was about Hillary. You'd think comments about the person named might be more appropriate. How disingenuous to skip over that one salient fact... who was this article about?
For the record: Bruce Dixon of the Black Agenda Report is also an officer in the Georgia Green Party, so when he is cited here, as he often is, people should be aware that he speaks not just from an African American point of view, but the Green point of view, which, of course, is his right. He is one of many, including Patrick Martin of The World Socialist Web site writing about Bernie as sheep dog herder for the Democrats, I've read him on Counterpoint. Chris Hedges uses different language to say the same thing, he's another who holds, at times, the "people" as sheep point of view. Paul Street is another interesting person, the author of a piece cited here today, I read it sometime ago on Counterpoint He also likes the imagery of people as sheep, and politicians as sheep herders. He writes from a Marxist point view. Now all of these people are entitled to their points of view. As for me, anyone who liken people to sheep, have no credibility. Another category I've heard Hedges use is the Marxist class category "Lumpenproletariat," the lost, the worthless, those who do not count. I accept no philosophy that sets aside some humans as sheep or lumpenproletariat. As I said, just some observations on people cited on this web site against Bernie. I love Counterpoint, diverse opinions are good for the intellect. There are many varieties of socialism, ancient and modern. Go Bernie.
Hillary won't win in case anybody cares about winning. Bernie Sanders can win and that is why " apparatchiks " within the DNC and other front groups are trying to destroy him. Look at the constant agitprop here. They spin the garbage over and over. They can't stand that their " white privilege " is being exposed as elitist, racist and class based rot. If Bernie wins their little gated community minds and lives crumble by the popular will of the electorate. The elites in think tanks, universities and state and federal positions are seeing their world, and their " special rights " drifting into the real America their parents worked so hard to get them out of. Shame on their desecrating the middle and blue collar heritage of their ancestors. Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton; what's to like, really?
Of course it is about Hillary. As a counterpoint I thought it important to give some background on writers being cited against Bernie.
Wereflea wrote, "Give us a break okay? This article was about Hillary."
You give us a break, Wereflea. This article was clearly about how Hillary doesn't measure up to Sanders. It constantly mentions Sanders. In fact it begins with:
"As a strong challenge from the left emerges in the form of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders..."
Thus it mentions Sanders before it mentions Clinton. The entire article is framed as a discussion about how Clinton is not a real progressive like Sanders is.
It is obvious Wereflea that you are an adamant Sanders supporter and it is also obvious that it disturbs you when some commenters here critique him.
This article is not a simple critique of Clinton. It is an argument for supporting Sanders. Thus it is entirely appropriate to discuss Sanders as well as Clinton in the comments.
I put a challenge to you. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination and Clinton does and then he campaigns for her, will you then admit those of us who said he was sheep dogging for her were right? Or will you then adopt the lesser of two evils argument as to why we should support Clinton.
We are not arguing against Sanders to help Clinton. We are arguing against him to point out that the whole shebang is to help Clinton. Let's see what happens in 13 months and then we'll know who really is against Clinton and the establishmentarian, Wall Street oriented, MIC controlled Democratic Party and who isn't.
If you want to support Sanders, don't ask us to shut up. Respond to our points.
EXCELLENT summation of the ritualized dog and pony show being offered to the suck.., er, the voters, by the corporate Demos. Shillary is their perfect choice and she will continue the work of handing over the country to the 1% just like Barry the Liar and her loathsome faux husband did. Notice how shamelessly she is imitating some of Bernie's speeches in order to sell her phony liberal cred. She has even had the gall to claim that she wants to be our "champion". Like Bill, she will say and do whatever it takes to win and then turn around and betray most of the people who voted for her. I would love to see a woman as president of this country but I will NEVER vote for this Megathatcher of a candidate. I curse a political system that seems likely to again offer up two political dynasty candidates like Clinton and Bush. What a disgrace and further proof that our democracy is broken and has sold itself to the highest bidder
Wareflea wrote. "Where does Bernie come into this article about Clinton?"
He comes in in the first line of this CD article.
As a strong challenge from the left emerges in the form of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, who was once thought to be headed for a coronation in the Democratic presidential primary, has tried to recast herself as a progressive champion.
No, the article is about Clinton and Sanders. Read the first line.
As a strong challenge from the left emerges in the form of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, who was once thought to be headed for a coronation in the Democratic presidential primary, has tried to recast herself as a progressive champion.
No, there are a least three progressive candidates for the US Presidency; Sanders, O'Malley, and Stein, and Stein is not a tool of the Democratic Machine.
Thanks for the Counterpoint reference hottopic and jj. I would have passed right by it.
I do in fact take Clinton's run for the presidency very seriously - she is capable of starting a nuclear WWIII. None of the candidates other than Stein is likely to honestly address the other existental world problem, Global Warming. It's not politics. It has to do with the survival of homo sapiens and most other living species on this earth..
You love it so much that after several tries you still can't get the name right: It's CounterPunch.
But I hate smarm, you're good at. No one is perfect and I will never be caught correcting innocent errors in spelling or grammar. Thanks. I do love Counterpunch, because it provides point-counterpoint. Good day. Counterpoint is a very understandable similar meaning in this context.
