Home | About | Donate

Hillary’s VP Choice Will Show If “Unity” Talk Is Just Hot Air


Hillary’s VP Choice Will Show If “Unity” Talk Is Just Hot Air

Jeff Cohen

When he introduced Christian conservative Mike Pence as his running-mate on Saturday, Donald Trump made a point of acknowledging that “party unity” was a reason for his choice. Pence, who’d endorsed Trump’s main rival, “Lyin’ Ted Cruz,” is beloved by the Republican Party’s loyal base of religious and free-market fundamentalists – which includes many Republican voters and activists still wary of Trump.


I knew it.

She's considering only TPP fanatics who will sell America down the river. And clowns who want to give your Social Security away to Wall Street. Well she's not getting my vote. I don't trust her at all. And lets not forget that Hillary said she's putting Wild Bill in charge as the "Economy Tsar".

A NAFTA loving VP and Economic Tsar and Larry Summers negative interest rates against your account = tyranny.

I will instead vote for Donald Dump if this keeps up. Although I can't stand his VP or him, at least he's believable that he will oppose TPP trade pact that harms the American worker. And he's not as much a war hawk, which is the most important consideration. I don't think we'll survive a world war with Bomb-Happy-Hillary at the button.

Political Suicide is such sweet sorrow. :sob:

(Summers is the Clinton's Economist. He wants to instigate a sneaky bank bailout called "Negative Interest rates" where your account can lose up to Ten Percent per year to fund Bankster gambling bad debts. Greece, Switzerland and Cypress are already doing this, and the EU wants it everywhere. Say hello to a stealth form of Austerity.)


Unfortunately, it looks like Clinton – a Democratic centrist with close ties to corporate America – is ready to disregard the party’s activist base.

C'mon Jeff Cohen. Clinton has always ignored the party's base, while she herself has actively worked to undermine it by embracing neoliberalism and neoconservatism. She's the activist the Democratic base should disregard--not vice versa.

Why would Sanders' supporters buy Warren or Brown who failed to throw their support behind Sanders when he needed it, and managed to severely tarnish their progressive credentials in so doing? And while Ellison would likely be acceptable to Sanders supporters, would Clinton select a Muslim after all her pro-Israeli, AIPAC rhetoric--I think not.

The truth is that for many Sanders supporters, there's nothing the Dems can do at this point to win these voters, except govern like Sanders would have in the hopes they can woo us back in the next election. The story of the platform committee proves that ain't gonna happen.

The Democratic Party has sold out its base; this election proves it. I won't vote for Clinton even if she selects Sanders himself for her vice presidential nominee, and I'll bet there are millions more like me.


I have to admit that I find it rather funny that anyone thinks her VP pick is going to help Clinton in any way. Her record of creating disaster will still be the same as it was.


Count me among those.


I think one thing we can all count on in the next few months is that the "base" will be marginalized, criminalized and largely ignored by almost everyone. Then if we manage any success at organizing a tangible threat on Election Day despite the media blackout, they'll just commit election fraud again in order to silence our votes.

They did it before, so what's to stop them from doing it again? A Lawsuit?! They ARE the law.


I will instead vote for Donald Dump if this keeps up. Although I can't stand his VP or him, at least he's believable that he will oppose TPP trade pact that harms the American worker. And he's not as much a war hawk, which is the most important consideration. I don't think we'll survive a world war with Bomb-Happy-Hillary at the button.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest. :slight_smile: If you think of Clinton and Trump as a two for one deal, then the Green/Libertarian tickets start to sound so much more appealing.

I tend to believe that national political attitudes are usually a lot more normalized than they seem. If Trump won the nomination, while a woman like Fiorina, or a moderate like Kasich, or an establishment type like Rubio hardly made a splash, then that says that Clinton's nomination had more to do with the influence of money and self-righteousness in politics than anything to do with making history or practical sense. Likewise with Trump, he may say he's against the TPP and (in some cases) he's not as much of a war hawk, but that's not why he won.


lobo4justice, I'm just like you!


Greens are polling at only three percent. They don't even have one million dollars cash.

They are a cranky old party who always runs off new people, e.g., Ralph Nader supporters.

For whatever reasons they are dysfunctional and cannot win, this late in the election. Voting for Greens instead of Clinton increases the odds that Trump will win.


So, Yes. Vote Green, I guess. You win.


The last I knew, the Greens were polling at 7%!


Really? So you think maybe they've got some legs? Where did you see that poll?


Sherrod Brown is one of my Ohio Senators and he has been one of the few high-profile D's opposing the TPP in the Senate. He was also an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Almost none of the "progressive" D's had the courage to support Sanders, and Brown was no different. Brown is a product of the current generation of centrist D's. Go to his website and what you'll find are self-congratulatory press releases about increased production and stationing of C-130's here in Ohio, a mainstay of US military might. Press releases about all of the appointments to military academies he has helped procure for young Ohioans. This is the progressivism of our political animals.

Polls seem to indicate that, when worded effectively, most USAins hold moderately progressive views. Our "progressive" politicians though hide from the reality that militarism is destroying this nation.


True, we do seem to have the problem that the most illegitimate pair of parties is also the most visible and unmovable. But I'm the sort of optimist that likes to view that as a problem rather than a harsh reality.

If you don't think that you'd come out ahead by stopping Trump only to get Clinton instead (or vice-versa), the argument about "helping" one or the other doesn't carry as much weight, and it's not quite as flimsy a proposition to support one of the Green or Libertarian pair.


I consider Sanders supporters to be people for whom issues matter more than most everything else. Thus, references such as several in this article that assume that voters--and specifically Sanders voters--are predominately shallow-minded people just waiting to be manipulated by some superficial move or another, designed to trick them/us into thinking that our concerns will be properly addressed, is ludicrous and insulting.

Since, for a thousand reasons, I already don't trust Clinton past the end of my nose, why would it make me trust/support her if she were to make a choice for running mate which is clearly calculated to fool me into trusting/supporting her?


I think that this has got to be Clinton party propaganda to influence the masses - as well as wishful thinking on their part.

Almost every Sanders supporter that I know will NOT vote for Clinton and for the most part are switching to Jill Stein.

In addition, many of the new younger voters who were so excited for Sanders are disgusted and may just stay home on election day.
The Clinton candidacy will result in a Republican sweep in November.
The Democratic Party has no one to blame but themselves for being so out of touch with their members.
The Democratic Party has no one to blame but themselves for their idiocy and their upcoming massive loss.

Democratic Party R.I.P. 2016


"Today, progressive dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton is even stronger, more organized and better-networked than was dissatisfaction with Gore in 2000.

I sure hope Clinton does not ignore this reality – or this history.

If she loses a close election after choosing a corporate-centrist running-mate seen by progressive voters as a slap in the face, she’ll be the one to blame for a Trump White House. " Jeff Cohen, from the article.

I will NEVER vote for Hillary. Since the Greens can't even make a showing here in liberal Minnesota, I haven't given them much thought, although I agree with their platform. So instead of writing in Bernie, which I planned to do, or voting Trump, which is too cynical, even for me, I'll probably vote for Jill Stein. The Green Party needs to get recognized in the US to get federal funding and to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

At least I will feel that I am voting FOR something.


Many of the polls are not created to gauge opinion.
They are expressly created to mold opinion.
(i.e. so called "Push Polling")
They have a long way to go to make Clinton palatable to the voters.


Unity? Among Clinton's neoliberal supporters, no doubt. But unless the party unequivocally rejects the TPP, endorses universal health care, refuses corporate funding, and ends the policy of "endless war," their sideways spiel of "unity" is indeed nothing but a hot El Nino gust.


People have mentioned if they get some increased %, they will get more funding? Searching for that, I could not find it, but found some intersting detail about the uk green party, policy positions numbered and very excact.


Interesting article, correctly points out the disastrous VP selection by Gore, a continued 'triangulation' policy gone too far. But of course, most are still blaming the Nader voters, instead of Gore. It seems the oligarchs called the bluff of the progressives back then and 'let the dogs loose' with BushCo after that.

imo, based on this history, it's even more important progressives to hold the line, and not vote for Clinton now. If Clinton fails, it should be very clear to her supporters, better first get on board with the progressive next time.