Home | About | Donate

Hillary Clinton’s Announcement Paves Way for Progressives to Abandon Principles Very Early in 2016 Election


Hillary Clinton’s Announcement Paves Way for Progressives to Abandon Principles Very Early in 2016 Election

Kevin Gosztola

Hillary Clinton’s long-anticipated announcement that she will run for president in the 2016 election paves the way for progressives to abandon their principles and values much earlier than previous elections.


The author is guilty of the same equivocations about which he complains.

A number of progressives are not likely to wait this time for the Democratic Party’s primary to unfold because they contend it is inevitable Clinton will be ordained as the party’s nominee. Since her nomination is inevitable to them, such progressives will begin their quadrennial ritual now of rationalizing their vote, lowering their expectations and engaging in anti-democratic, intellectually dishonest arguments about America’s political system.

And who would be among that “number of progressives (sic)”? The author names two columnists who, he admits, are ardent Clinton supporters without considering the point that one could never support Hillary - or any other likely Dem candidate for the Presidency - and still honestly claim to be Progressive.



Good article Kevin. It is going to be a very long and frustrating election cycle with the Democrats pushing Hillary and denouncing everyone but Hillary. The idea that Democrats think that this is how a democracy works is sad. There is nothing democratic about wealthy people shepherding Hillary Clinton into office.


The discussion on Democracy Now Kevin links to is worth the time, if for no other reason than to see the inanity of Conason and Goldberg, truly pathetic performances. They’re back indeed, already CD has run two other grand progressive rationalizations for Clinton, the Kuttner piece, and yesterday’s Katrina Vanden Huvel screed. There isn’t any enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton that I can detect, nothing about her public life endears. She is likely to float into office on a sea of pablum, without sugar. For a refresher course on Hillary see Counterpunch, they are doing a series from their archives which is excellent.



Progressives also abandoned the anti-war movement as soon as Obama was sworn in.

I have already heard many TV pundits saying, and authors writing that progressives will come to Hillary’s defense and vote for her if she gets attacked by the Republicans.

So there, Hillary our next president. Why bother with primaries, conventions and billions of dollars spent the next two years?


No, we didn’t.



Democrats like to talk about the fear-mongering on the right … what is this lesser evils argument other than fear-mongering on the left? Sawant is absolutely correct in her Democracy Now appearance: “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.”


Nice slur against Elizabeth Warren as if she’s of the same ilk as Bush, Cheney and the Clintons. Politics is a dirty business when drug cartels, organized crime be it via the Deep State and/or entities like Mafia, and corporations that ACT with criminal disregard for everything but profit dominate the Big Money Show. And that is what forms the crux and core of elections. What this means is that short of regaining control of the corporate mass media, any candidate capable of obtaining the “face time” necessary for winning elections must either own or be able to attract Big Money. Enter the taint.

Nonetheless, within this system of Dirty Money and its control over the political casino, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t marked differences between those long-soiled by the game, and newcomers who rush in hoping to make at least some positive changes. Lumping all of them together is the political version of Dante’s Inferno. This perspective essentially hangs out a sign that says all are condemned; and if that’s the case, short of a bloody revolution unlikely to replace the current authoritarian system with anything less militant, so are We, the great mass of persons.

What’s encouraging in this article, and therefore, goes without mention since it challenges the Tag Team’s preferred Blame-Voters meme, are the high percentages of disaffected citizens who WANT that 3rd party alternative… but may well recognize how all facets of the existing system preclude such an interloper from amassing power, influence, or high office. For now.


If everyone thought the same and occupied the same niche of the political spectrum elections would hardly be needed at all. The truth is that the spectrum goes way beyond Team A and Team B and different readers of this forum and elsewhere may fit into moderate niches. Some of them resonate with writers from The Nation. How would such persons grow in their perspective and move further to the Left if some articles and authors don’t “meet” them where they are?

I happen to think that military right wing authoritarians occupy this forum and take aim at just about every writer and activist–often including Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, and at times, Chris Hedges–largely to discredit them. And if those on the front line fighting for environmental justice, civil rights, women’s rights, and OTHER than militarism are set up for target practice, who remains to carry the banners for these causes in an era that is increasingly limited and/or locked down by corporate controls and paid commanders of one sect or another?

If the whole world thought like you and you alone, it would be clones.

Allow others a chance to catch on without demonizing those who may be more moderate and inclusive in their philosophy. Having said that, I recognize it’s the 3rd rail to Agent Provocateur types who must convince honest readers that anyone and everyone on the Left (or left of today’s odious and dangerous “center”) is compromised, sold-out, or less than honest or useful. How better to stir up frenzy for blind “fighting” back?


In casino capitalism cum politics, “the house always wins.”


All the ones I once worked with did…


Progressive is as Progressive does.

If some folks who call themselves Progressive abandon their principles so readily then I have to wonder if they truly understand what the term means.



This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.